위키백과:뉴스/후보/2015년 2월

2월 28일

---

[폐쇄] 돔 아래(필름)

[폐쇄] RD: 앤서니 메이슨

2월 27일

---

[폐쇄/포고] 보리스 넴초프 살해

세르반도 고메스 마르티네스 구금

노미네이터의 말: 마르티네스는 멕시코에서 가장 지명수배된 마약왕일 뿐만 아니라 한때 미초아칸 전체를 지배했던 템플 기사단의 지도자였다.그러므로 그의 구속은 의미심장해 보인다.매일 아침 토크 20:22, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 - 마약과의 싸움에서 중요한 만큼.--BabbaQ (대화) 21:06, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 니모이 뉴스가 터지기 전 이 내용을 들여다보고 있었는데, 의미가 큰 것으로 보인다. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 이것이 유죄 판결은 아니지만, 그가 수배자였기 때문에 체포가 눈에 띈다.스펜서^T♦C 21:59, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 질문하다.왜 이것이 '구속'이 아닌 '구속'으로 표현되는가? 331닷 (토크) 22:04, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 응, 게시하기 전에 체포로 바꿔야 할 것 같아.--밥바Q (대화) 22:07, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

    • CNN은 (위 링크 참조) 구류라고 말한다.매일 아침 토크 22:11, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 내 질문은, (멕시코에서) 구금되는 것과 체포되는 것의 차이는 무엇인가?아니면 없는 건가? (대화) 22:48, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 우리가 3개월마다 같은 이야기를 하는 것에 반대해, 가장 큰 마약왕... 그리고 그는 아무 죄도 없다.한편, 러시아에서는...㎕δεες (대화) 23:12, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 우리는 글을 올리기 전에 유죄 판결을 기다리는 통상적인 관행을 고수해야 한다.이것에 대한 확실한 BLP 이유가 있다. - 우리는 유죄판결을 받기 전에 위키피디아 1면에 누군가를 "마약왕"으로 낙인찍어서는 안 된다.이 기사는 그를 "추천된 마약왕"이라고 언급하고 있는데, 이것이 더 적절하다는 점에 주목하라.넬잭(대화) 23:16, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

  나는 당신에 대해 잘 모르지만, 그 사람이 그들의 인정된 불법 마약 사업이 어떻게 멕시코 사람들에게 실제로 이득이 되는지 설명하는 것을 목표로 하는 녹화된 비디오를 배포하는 습관이 있을 때, 나의 "무죄의 표현"을 줄이는 경향이 있다.멕시코와 미국, 그리고 대부분의 뉴스 보도는 그를 단순한 의심으로 간주하려고 하지 않고 마약왕으로 규정한다.드래곤즈 항공편 (토크) 2015년 2월 28일 00:12, (UTC)[응답]

  어쩌면 우리는 그 차이를 나눠서 그를 "엄청난 마약왕"이라고 부를 수도 있을 것이다.전립(대화) 01:10, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  마약왕으로 의심받았나?오사마 빈 라덴은 테러리스트로 상당히 강하게 의심받았다고 말하는 것 같다. (오사마 역시 유죄 판결을 받은 적이 없다.)아니면 멕시코의 공식 지명수배 마약왕 목록과 연계해 그를 "가장 원하는 마약왕"이라고 부를 수도 있다.그의 생포와 함께, 오직 5명의 사람들만이 자유로 남아있다.드래곤즈 비행 (대화) 03:59, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대한다, 합의는 오직 유죄판결을 게시하는 것이다.납북(이유) 05:40, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

일반적으로 그렇긴 하지만, 가끔 눈에 띄는 체포나 눈에 띄는 도망자들의 포획은 (이것과 이것처럼) 통과한다.331닷 (대화) 11:24, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 항상 "가장 지명수배된 마약왕"이 있을 것이라고 반대한다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC) 21:48 [응답]

[포스팅] RD: 레너드 니모이

MASEM (t) 17:16, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 현대 사회에서 가장 상징적인 현대 문화 인물 중 한 명 지원.조슈아 가너 (대화) 2015년 2월 27일 17:21 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원:국제적으로 인정받고 대중문화에서 사랑받는 인물. -쿠즈1 (토크) 17:24, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 분명히 RD에 대한 지원.카누크^{89 (talk to me)} 17:26, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)
• 지지하다.그는 항상 우리의 친구였다 그리고 앞으로도 그럴 것이다.— 162.95.216.224 (대화) 17:34, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]이 서명되지 않은 이전 의견 추가
• 블럽을 포함한 지원(Tom Baker처럼, 그의 분야에서 정말로 큰 아이콘)그 글은 아직 시제 확인이 필요한데, 동사 몇 개를 고쳐 놨어.그 글에 표현된 의견은 인용구가 필요하다.나는 편집자들에게 영화나 TV 에피소드에서 그가 인정받은 특정한 이름의 배역에는 인용문이 필요하지 않다는 것을 상기시켜주고 싶다. 하지만 예를 들어, 존 스튜어트 쇼에서의 그의 출연은 특정한 에피소드로 기인해야 한다.그런 점을 감안한다면 최대한 빨리 올라가야 할 것 같다.㎕δεες (대화) 17:40, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이것은 ITN 시스템의 무결성을 유지하기 위해 내가 정말 조심해야 할 유형의 사례다.그의 죽음은 놀라운 일이 아니었으며(그는 작년에 COPD에 걸렸다고 발표했고, 그와 관련된 문제로 지난 주에 병원에 입원했다), 그리고 그는 대중문화 아이콘인 동안, 다른 사람들에게 우선 순위를 둘 것이기 때문에 RD 기준의 수준을 넘어서서 - 훌륭한 배우, 훌륭한 사람이지만 논쟁하기 어려운 - 그저 - 다른 사람들에게 흐릿함을 포함시키는 것이 중요했다.이 케이스 RD는 --MASEM (t) 17:49, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 그의 오랜 경력, 그가 죽을 때까지 일했다는 사실, 그리고 지난 50년 동안 영어를 사용하는 문화가 없었다면 그의 매우 상징적인 지위가 조금 더 가난했을 것이라고 주장한다.그는 공상 과학에서 그 분야의 정상을 차지했다.카메오의 수, 스핀오프, 패러디, 스팍의 역할에 대한 자신만의 중요한 투입물을 보면, 그는 마이클 키튼과 함께 로빈 역을 맡은 그 남자뿐만이 아니었다.㎕δεες (대화) 18:25, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 잘 들어, 난 흐리멍덩한 사람이 좋긴 한데, 이 사건이 우리를 물어뜯고 있는 걸 볼 수 있어. 어떤 분야에서 '믿고 있는' 사람이 노년기 또는 다른 비슷한 합병증으로 죽어서 RD에 대해 흐리멍덩하게 굴었을 때 말이야.그는 넬슨 만달라, 마가렛 대처도 아니고, 그의 죽음은 로빈 윌리엄스(내가 내부적으로 죽음의 가치를 흐리게 하기 위해 사용하는 것)의 충격도 아니었다.즉, 엄청난 팬 층과 엔터테인먼트(니모이를 능가하거나 같음)에 대한 중요성이 있음에도 불구하고 RD 게시물이었던 조안 리버스를 데려가는 것이다. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD 지원.더 램블링맨 (토크) 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC) 17:41, 답글
• 게시된 RD는 나중에 블럽을 받을 자격이 있을 수 있다.나콘 17:56, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 지적한 바와 같이 그 글은 아직 게시할 상태가 아니다.CN 태그 몇 개 처리해야 돼준비될 때까지 당겨줘. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 당기기보다는 그런 댓글들을 숨겨놨어. (아무리 많이 잡았다고는 하지만 여전히 긴장해서 기사 전체를 읽어야 한다) 바쁘겠지만 그 사이에 누군가가 고쳐주지 않으면 오늘 밤에 다시 돌아갈 수 있어.㎕δεες (대화) 18:12, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시 후 지원 - 명백히 RD에 충분하다.— BabbaQ가 추가한 선행 서명되지 않은 의견(토크 • 기여)
• RD에 대한 게시 후 지원.서포트가 흐릿하긴 하지만 분명히 덜 선명하다.뉴욕브래드(대화) 18:37, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 흐릿함을 반대하다.그는 명백한 RD 후보지만, COPD와 오랫동안 싸운 후 사랑하는 80세 이상의 배우가 죽는 것은 나에게 흐릿함을 정당화 할 만한 이유가 되지 않는다.여기에 더 자세히 설명하기 위해 모호한 설명이 필요한 이야기가 있는가?누가 보고 싶은 블러브라도 제안할 수 있어?지금 당장은 어떤 구체적인 제안도 제시되지 않았다고 보지 않으며, (내가 이해한 바와 같이) 그의 죽음에 대한 이야기는 흐릿함을 정당화할 정도로 높아지지는 않는 것 같다.드래곤즈 비행 (토크) 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC) 18시 49분[응답]
• RD에 대한 게시 후 확실한 지원.흐릿함을 반대하라; 그것은 죽음의 이차적 영향이 그 자체가 뉴스일 때를 위해 유보되어야 한다.만약 사람들이 그가 너무 빨리 RD에서 빠져나올 것을 우려한다면, 아마추어 스포츠 코치 같은 개인들을 추가하는 것에 대해 좀 더 선택적으로 생각해라.—크립틱 18:51, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

40분이 기록인가?마르티네반스123 (대화) 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC) 18:55, "불충분한 사실들은 항상 위험을 불러 일으킨다."[답답하다]

• 흐릿함은 매우 비논리적일 것이라는 것에 동의하라.구립 (대화) 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC) 19:10 (대화)[응답]
  • 거기서 뭘 했는지 봤잖아◆야구 벅스 당근→ 19:38, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[답글]
• RD - 주요 문화 아이콘 지원◆야구 벅스 당근→ 19:38, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD에 대한 지지와 아마도 흐림- 그는 분명 거대한 문화적 아이콘이었지만, 만약 이것이 흐림과 부딪힌다면 반대하지는 않겠지만, 그가 실제 흐림으로써 충분히 큰 인물인지 나는 잘 모르겠다.안디세1 (대화) 2015년 2월 27일 20:10 (UTC)[응답]
• RD에 대한 지원; 내 안의 스타트랙 팬은 흐릿함을 원하지만, 나는 그것이 정당하다고 확신할 수 없다.그래도 다 되면 귀찮지 않아. 331닷 (토크) 20:34, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

눈썹 하나만으로도 흐릿할 만하다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 20:47, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 blumb. 우리 여기서 흥분하지 말자.위키피디아 사람들은 아마도 일반 인구보다 트레키족일 가능성이 훨씬 더 높을 것이다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC) 20:57 [응답]
• 흐릿함을 반대하다.니모이는 쟁쟁하고 재능 있는 배우였지만 세계적으로 중요한 인물은 아니었다.모레(토크) 21:05, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 오, 그래, 맞아.BBC.com 인터내셔널이 1면 기사로 "스타트렉 전설 니모이가 83세에 죽는다"는 글을 올린 것도 이 때문일 것이다.

많은 이야기들이 BBC 1면에 매일 수십 건씩 등장한다.그들은 모두 ITN을 흐리게 하지는 않는다.머더드 지니어스 16:55, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 블러브:마이클 잭슨이나 휘트니 휴스턴이 그의 분야에서 활약하고 있다.나는 샤트너 조차도 공상 과학에서 존경받는 인물인지 의심스럽다.— 크리스코 1492 (대화) 06:26, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 기록이 거의 같을지라도마르티네반스123 (대화) 09:55, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 흐릿함을 반대하다."공상과학소설에서 리바이버된"은 아마도 충분한 이유가 되지 못할 것이다.기머틀 (대화) 10:29, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 포스트 포스트 지원 RD, 블러브 반대그의 분야(연기)에서는 중요하지만 세계사의 주요 인물은 아니며 그의 죽음으로 인한 큰 파장은 없다.이것이 바로 RD를 위한 것이다.머더드 지니어스 16:52, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

니모이를 위한 RD, 스팍을 위한 블러브?물론 고맙게도 그는 죽지 않았어마르티네반스123 (대화) 16:59, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

2월 26일

---

RD:테오도어 헤스버그

노미네이터의 논평: 거룩한 십자가의 사제, 노트르담 대학교 명예총장, TIAA-CREF Hesburgh Award의 네임플레이크였습니다.ṫ ḧ 05:42, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 주의사항 지원:이날 다른 사망자가 많은 반면 헤스버그는 전성기 때 두각을 나타냈으며 만년에는 인기가 있었다.조지 맥거번의 러닝메이트로 꼽혔고, 정치적 이유로 해임될 때까지 15년간 인권위원회에서 일했으며, 대학 캠퍼스 내 폭력 억제 정책 개발에 관여했다.후자의 두 가지는 사실 다시 매우 시사적이다.하지만 내가 주의할 점은 그 기사가 좀 개선되어야 한다는 것이다.예를 들어 일부 참조인은 데드 링크다.하지만 나는 헤즈버그가 최근에 죽은 대학 총장만은 아니라는 것을 분명히 하고 싶다.—/Mendaliv///^2¢_Δ's 16:06, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그 모든 1970년대 활동 당시에도 이야기가 나돌았다.Q:하느님과 헤스버그 신부님의 차이점은?A: 신은 어디에나 있어.헤즈버그 신부는 노트르담 외에는 어디에나 있다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 16:14, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대하라. 이 사람이 어떤 분야에서 중요했는지는 완전히 불분명하다. 그가 인기가 많았다는 것과 그 모든 것은 확실하지만 RD 가치가 거의 없다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 21:40, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 기꺼이 설명해 줄게.먼저 노트르담 대학교 총장으로서의 헤즈버그의 기여가 있다.그의 재임 기간 동안 대학의 예산은 18배, 등록금은 2배, 기부금은 39배 가까이 늘었고, 대학은 먼저 여성을 인정했다.그러나 그의 기여는 인디아나에 있는 초라한 가톨릭 대학을 훨씬 넘어선다.그는 1969년부터 1972년까지 자신이 위원장으로 있던 국민권익위원회를 포함해 16명의 대통령직을 수행했다.그는 맥거번에게 러닝메이트로 여겨졌다.그는 대통령 자유 훈장과 의회 금메달을 받았다.그는 150개 이상의 명예 학위를 받았다.그는 1962년 2월 9일 타임지의 표지에 있었다.그는 1956년부터 1970년까지 국제원자력기구(IAEA)의 바티칸 시 상임이사국 대표였다.그는 한때 록펠러 재단의 회장이었다.1979년 유엔 과학 기술 개발 회의(유엔 CSTD가 개최한)의 대사를 지냈다.그는 하버드 감독 위원회에 선출된 최초의 사제였으며, 그 중 1994년과 1995년에 대통령이 되었다.그는 13년 동안 기사 위원회의 공동위원장을 맡았다.이것들은 헤즈버그가 생전에 가졌던 상당한 영향력의 일부에 불과하다.벅스가 위에서 말한 것처럼, 헤스버그는 전성기 동안 거의 모든 곳에 있었다.은퇴할 때 그가 비교적 무명으로 변했다는 사실은 여기서 그에게 불리하게 여겨져서는 안 된다.—/Mendaliv//^2¢_Δ's 22:32, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 그래, 그가 많은 일을 한 것처럼 들리지만, 내 생각에는 그가 RD 자격을 가질 정도로 그 중 어느 것도 눈에 띄지 않아.더 람블링맨 (토크) 2015년 3월 1일 (UTC) 19:37[응답]
• 반대: 노틀담에 주목할 만한 사람은 그가 ITN의 자격을 얻지 못한다.이 신사는 매우 충만하고 뛰어난 삶을 살았던 것 같지만, 운명과 상황이 그를 연예인의 선두주자로 두기 위해 공모한 것 같다. -쿠즈1 (토크) 00:01, 2015년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 위의 내 의견을 보십시오.노틀담에 첨부된 헤스버그의 기여를 노틀담의 업적이 훨씬 넘어갔을 때, 그 지명자의 진술은 유감스럽게도 지나치게 강조한다.특히 70년대에는 그랬지만 80년대와 90년대에는 헤즈버그가 국가정책의 무버와 셰이커였다.교육 및 민권에 대한 그의 기여와 참여는 상당했다(위의 논평에서 간략히 언급된 바와 같이).나는 여기 단골은 아니지만 왜 이것이 분명히 WP의 기준 2를 충족하지 못하는지 모르겠다.ITND. 고등교육에서 헤즈버그의 역할은 아무리 강조해도 지나치지 않다.그가 가장 명예로운 학위를 가지고 있다는 것은 그것을 확실히 증명한다.—/Mendaliv//^2¢_Δ's 01:19, 2015년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 네가 말하는 것을 이해한다. 나는 단지 동의하지 않는다.헤즈버그 씨의 업적 중 어떤 것도 그를 ITN 사망자로 우리가 열거할 수 있는 사람의 지위로 격상시킨다고는 보지 않는다. -쿠즈1 (대화) 06:13, 2015년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대, 나는 유명인사의 선두에 서는 것은 관련 기준이 아니지만, 많은 자리에 앉아 있는 것도 성취가 되지 않는다고 지적한다.㎕δεες (대화) 18:40, 2015년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 - 분명히 다산수학이지만, 마찬가지로 특정 분야에서 선도적인 인물은 아니다.알렉스 티플링 (대화) 2015년 3월 2일 01:00 (UTC)[응답]

[포스팅] 아비지트 로이

명명자의 의견:그의 살인은 영국판 BBC 뉴스페이지 1면에 실린 5번째 이야기로, 고도의 중요성을 시사하고 있다.살인이 전세계적으로 보고되고 있다.살인 그 자체인 만큼 RD에 맞지 않는 것 같고, 그의 분야에서 그가 매우 중요한 인물로 널리 여겨졌다고 말하기는 어려울 것이다.알트 블럽의 제안은 환영한다.벤첼라이트^Talk 13:55, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

참고, 그의 이야기는 BBC 1면 1위로 옮겨갔다.또한 NBCnews.com의 앞 표지에는 '이슬람 급진주의자들'이 해킹해 숨지게 한 미국 블로거와 폴드 아래의 independent.co.uk이 있다.사람들이 라이프 바다위 석방 운동을 벌이고 있고, 블로거들이 현대 기술을 이용해 보수적인 사상에 도전하는 능력이 세계적인 관심사여서 흥미롭다. -- 아론작 (토크) 14:09, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

BBC의 첫 번째 이야기는 영국 밖의 사람들을 위한 것이어야 한다 - 영국판은 여전히 등록금에 대한 노동당 공약이다.벤첼라이트^Talk 14시 30분, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이야기는 bbc.com 앞면에 있으며, bbc.com/news,에서 홀라 언블럭커의 UK VPN을 이용하여 bbc.co.uk에서 "그리스에 대한 재정지원을 위한 독일 투표"에 이어 두 번째 기사인 "뉴스" 탭 아래에 있다. -- 아론작 (talk) 15:28, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 런던에 있는 책상에 있다.아직 홈페이지에서 5번째 이야기고 BBC 아이폰 뉴스 앱에서도 5번째 이야기지만, 세계 다른 곳에서도 톱스토리로 상영된다는 사실은 처음 4위를 차지하는 국내 이야기(레이버 등록금, 게리 글리터, 지하디 존, 로이즈 뱅크 배당금)와는 달리 전 세계적으로 그 중요성을 보여준다.벤첼라이트^Talk 17:17, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그가 암살되기 전에 저명한 인물이라면 나는 이것을 지지할 수 있었지만, 그의 글은 그가 죽은 후에야 비로소 만들어진 것이었다.㎕δεες (대화) 17:45, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 설립한 웹사이트 묵토 모나는 2013년 블로거 살해 및 감금 항의에 관여했다 - 아흐메드 라집 하이데르#이슬람주의자들이 무신론 블로거들을 공격한 것을 보라 - 아론작 (토크) 18:42, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

보아하니 그의 암살자들은 그가 살인을 저지를 만큼 충분히 주목할 만하다고 생각했다.◆야구 벅스 당근→ 22:43, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 - 전 세계 지원 서비스 제공구글 뉴스 검색 결과 1만5000개 뉴스 기사 - 라하트(메시지) 06:15, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 전 세계적으로 많은 취재가 이뤄진 것으로 보인다.--BabbaQ (대화) 18:18, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.많은 취재에, 좋은 기사.모레(토크) 21:03, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.단순히 끔찍한 범죄가 아니라 무신론자의 의견을 폭력적으로 억압하는 경향의 한 예로서, 그리고 중대한 항의와 관련되었다.이것은 영국에서 계속해서 많은 보도를 받고 있다.에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 22:38, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 국경없는 기자 보호 위원회는 전세계 언론인과 블로거들에 대한 탄압이 고조되고 있는 가운데 그의 죽음을 비난했다.이제 글의 모양이 좋아져야 한다. -- 아론작 (토크) 00:48, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지하다.이번 사건이 평범한 살인이 아닌 것은 확실하다. --에게미(토크) 10:36, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지는 전 세계적인 주목을 받고 있다(어제 가디언에서 가장 많이 읽었던 기사였다), 언론의 자유와 관련된 중요한 이슈로 기사는 좋은 상태에 있다.레갈레86 (대화) 10:47, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시. 에스프레소 중독자 (대화) 16:29, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

로이드 백작

명명자의 의견:NBA 최초의 흑인 선수와 챔피언 팀에 처음 합류한 선수, NBA 최초의 흑인 코치."NBA에서 가장 중요하고 인정받지 못하는" 선수들 중 하나로 묘사되는[14]; "로이드가 농구 코트에 발을 내디딘 가장 위대한 선수로 여겨지지 않을 수도 있지만, 그는 가장 영향력 있는 선수 중 한 명이었다."농구 명예의 전당에 입성, 그 외 몇 개의 영예. 331닷 (토크) 09:56, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 오늘 아침 BBC 라디오 5의 스포츠 게시판(영국 국영 뉴스 및 스포츠 라디오 방송국, 익숙하지 않은 분들을 위해!)에서 이 말을 들었고, 은퇴한 미국인(혹은 정말로 어떤 국적이라도) 스포츠맨이 이런 식으로 언급되는 것을 마지막으로 들은 것이 기억나지 않아, 이것이 높은 수치를 나타낸다는 생각에 기울었다.비록 그의 경력은 뛰어나지 못하더라도 그의 분야에서 중요성의 수준 (나는 그가 선수가 아닌 기고자로 명예의 전당에 헌액된 것을 주목한다.)2015년 2월 27일(UTC) 10시 2분 벤첼라이트^Talk[응답]
  • 최근에 RD에서 발표한 찰리 시퍼드가 비교가 될 만한 인물이라고 생각하나?– 무보슈구 (토크) 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC) 12:48[응답]
• 이건 좀 헷갈려.NBL은 1942년에 통합되었다.1949년, BAA와 NBL이 합병된 후, 그들은 컬러 장벽 아래에서 한 시즌을 뛰었다.로이드는 그 후 가장 먼저 경기를 치렀는데, 이때 공동조직이 NBA로 알려졌지만 계약이나 징집 대상이 처음은 아니었다.대신, 그의 팀의 일정은 그 시즌 초반에 다른 세 명의 흑인 NBA 선수들보다 먼저 시작되었다.— 162.95.216.224 (대화) 17:02, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]이 서명되지 않은 이전 의견 추가
• 명목당 지원.넬잭(대화) 23:13, 2015년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 미안, 하지만 이건 또 다른 미국의 아스홀의 죽음이야.NBA는 물론 챔피언팀에서도 최초의 흑인 선수였기 때문에 정말 우리가 이것을 올려야 한다고 생각하는가?그가 게임에서 가장 위대한 선수들 중 한 명이라는 어떤 징후도 그가 메인 페이지에 오를 기회를 의미하지 않는다.--드론드론 (토크) 16:41, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 기부의 3분의 2는 "미국의 똥"이나 "미국의 똥구멍"에 대해 불평하는 것으로 구성되어 있는 것 같다.당신의 언어를 재고해 보십시오.고마워요.자갈레호^^ 18:46, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 또한 최고의 선수들만이 게시되어야 한다는 요구사항은 없다; 그것은 그들의 분야에서 매우 중요한 사람들이다.중요한 선수가 될 필요는 없어. 331닷 (토크) 11:14, 2015년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지 - 파이오니어, 명예의 전당 - 그리고 위의 극도로 불쾌한 코멘트에 즉각적으로 대응하기 위한 것이다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 16:55, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 약한 지지. 그는 언제나 역사책에 자리를 잡을 것이고, 그의 죽음은 언론의 상당한 관심을 받았다.그렇기는 하지만, 그의 데뷔는 정말로 야구에서의 재키 로빈슨과 비교가 되지 않았다.자갈레호^^ 18:46, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 야구 버그당 지원.숙성된 필모어 (대화) 21:38, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대론자들은 아마도 그 기사를 읽지 못했지만, 그것은 6년 이상 동안 그 위에 밝은 오렌지색 유지 관리 태그를 달고 있었다. 예를 들어 "NBA 커리어" 섹션에는 단 하나의 사실만을 언급하는 인용구가 있다.게다가, 그것은 언급되지 않은 인용구들을 가지고 있고 그가 죽었다는 사실 이외에는 그의 죽음에 관한 것이 아무것도 없다.요컨대, 그 기사는 엉터리고 우리가 메인 페이지에 올려야 할 품질과는 거리가 멀다.개인의 공신력에 대해서는 (어떤 애정으로도 이런 개인을 붙잡지 않는 아웃사이더로서) 경계선으로 보인다.그는 농구선수로서 그의 경력에 있어서 거의 승리를 거두지 못했고 그의 지나친 HOF에 대한 유도는 선수로서가 아니었다는 것은 주목할 만하다.더 램블링맨 (토크) 21:46, 2015년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 야구 버그별 지원 --TDKR Chicago 101 (토크) 01:15, 2015년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 조항은 질이 심각하게 부족하다.그의 대학 경력은 훌륭해 보이고, 그의 직업 경력은 훨씬 덜 그래 보인다 - 그리고 전체 기사에 언급이나 인용문은 거의 없다.챌린저 l (토크) 11:04, 2015년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 아무도 그를 훌륭한 선수로 올려야 한다고 말하지 않았지만(그는 선수로서 명예의 전당에 있지 않다) 내가 올린 정보원이 말해주듯이 그가 중요하지 않다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.331닷 (대화) 11시 15분, 2015년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

::* 충분히 공평하다 - 하지만 이것은 그 남자가 실제로 그를 주목할 만한 일을 한 것에 대해 완전히 미혹을 남긴다 - 만약 그것이 선수로서가 아니었다면, 그가 그의 경력에 가장 잘 알려진 것을 반영하기 위해 오프닝 섹션이 다시 쓰여져야 하는 것보다, 나는 챌린저 l (talk) 2015년 3월 2일 (UTC)이라고 생각할 것이다.[답글]

야, 나는 정말로 그를 충분히 주목할 만한 NBA 최초의 흑인 선수가 그리웠어. 하지만 그 기사는 여전히 많은 양의 작업이 필요해.챌린저 l (대화) 13:17, 2015년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 - RD 언급에 충분히 주목할 만함.--BabbaQ (대화) 16:18, 2015년 3월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

[게시] FCC 망 중립성 준수

명명자의 의견:이는 미국 중심이지만, 이는 인터넷과 관련된 문제인 만큼, 그 영향이 전 세계를 관통할 것으로 예상됐다.또한, 거의 모든 사람들이 이것이 법정에서 이의를 제기할 것이라고 예상하지만, 이 시점에서 언제 그리고 어떻게 하는지는 확실하지 않다.MASEM (t) 18:09, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지 - 이 부분을 너무 가까이서 따라 하지는 않았지만, 큰 뉴스와 획기적인 결정으로 보인다. --봉와리오르 (토크) 18:17, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 중요한 결정.2015년 2월 26일 18:19, 2월 26일 군중[응답]
• 지원 - 중요.---BabbaQ (대화) 18:20, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 이것은 큰 승리다.포브스는 위키피디아(및 다른 사람들)가 온라인 해적행위 중지법에 항의하기 위해 어두워졌을 때보다 더 큰 규모라고 말한다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 18:26, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

  위키피디아가 이것에 항의하여 블랙아웃될 것인가?호크예7 (대화)20:28, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 서둘러 이 글을 올리기 전에, 기사의 업데이트 내용은 어디에 있는가?기사의 선두에 있는 일문일답 6항과 마지막 항이 될까?앞으로 이 투표에 대해 이야기하는 선두의 다섯 번째 단락은 어떨까?이것에 관한 기사 본문의 내용은 어디에 있는가?벤첼라이트^Talk 18시 30분, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 정말 우리는 이것을 서둘러 게시해서는 안 된다.업데이트가 필요하다."2014년 제안된 미국 FCC 정책" 섹션에는 확장 태그가 있지만, 분리할 수 있는 것으로 보인다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 18:42, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 나는 지지 쪽으로 기울고 있지만, 첫째, 이것이 어디든 통과된 최초의 망중립법인지에 대해 누구라도 답을 줄 수 있는가?전립 (대화) 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC) 19:12, 응답
• Support with condition that it is noted that net neutrality is not the sole rule applied to broadband service. There are, at least allegedly, hundreds of other regulations that shouldn't be glazed over with the blurb. Joshua Garner (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of other things the FCC voted on today that are aligned with the idea of NN (such as this also applying to mobile data plans, that providers can't block local municipalities from installing their own services, etc.) and these should be included in the NN in US article, but I don't think there's room to cover all that in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about something along the lines of "...as a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules..."? Joshua Garner (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not be opposed to the "including" verbage. Adding as alt-blurb for this and Isanae's suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • 나는 원어민이 아니지만, "포함" 부분은 좀 이상하게 들린다."...브로드밴드는 유틸리티로 재분류되는데, 여기에는 망 중립성 강화가 포함된다.하지만 이것은 더 흐릿하게 만들 뿐이다.나는 "포함"을 완전히 거절할 것이다.이사 (토크) 22:23, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
        • 나는 이것이 옳지 않다고 생각한다.그들이 오늘 투표한 것 중 하나는 광대역통신을 유틸리티로 분류하는 것인데, 이는 기본적으로 유틸리티라고 불리는 서비스의 요구사항이기 때문에 NN을 제정할 수 있게 하는 것이다.그들은 또한 광대역통신을 유틸리티로 취급해야 한다는 접근방식과 모두 일치하는 몇 가지 다른 이슈에 대해 투표를 했지만, 이 다른 어떤 표도 그 특정 점에 대해서는 투표하지 않았다.따라서 이런 방식으로 NN 규칙을 "포함"하는 것은 아니다.이러한 다른 문제가 중요하지 않다는 것은 아니지만 모든 사람이 광대역 분류 판결에 대해 책임을 지고 있었다.우리가 이 다른 사항들을 빠뜨린 것이 중요하지 않다는 것을 의미하는 것은 아니지만, 이 구체적인 결정은 ITN 항목이었다. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
          • 나는 그 구분이 독자들을 흐리게 하는 것과 관련이 있다고 생각한다.효용 제2호 규칙의 일부만 적용되고 있다: NYTimes로부터, "...새 규칙은 일부 조항을 채택하고 다른 규칙은 회피하는 제2호 제목 제2호의 카르트 버전이다."상황은 복잡하며, 규칙(순 중립성)의 한 가지 효과만을 명시하는 것은 이 재분류의 광범위한 영향을 부당하게 무시한다.마밀레스 (대화) 22:56, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
            • 블러브는 공간이 한정되어 있고 이 투표는 복잡하다.이런 상황에서, 나는 그 결정의 가장 대중적인 효과를 언급하고 관심 있는 독자들이 더 많은 정보를 얻기 위해 그 기사를 방문할 것이라고 가정한다.나는 이것이 흐림을 불완전하게 만든다는 너의 요점을 이해하지만, 그것이 그것을 부정확하게 만들지는 않는다.이사 (토크) 23:05, 2015년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• Support This is important. SeraV (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose yes it would be big news if this won't be taken down by some judge in a few months. Unless I am missing something, there will be some endless litigation following this 3-2 decision. Until something like Supreme Court decides on this or it actually comes into force, I suggest to wait on posting this. Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is pretty much a sure thing that there's going to be a challenge to this. However, it should be noted that the FCC had has attempt to do this a couple times before but had to change their approach here (specifically the reclassification of broadband as a utility, something under their power) as to be able to set the NN rules, and so any challenge is going to likely be a SCOTUS case, and if and when that will happen, we don't know. --MASEM (t) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not everybody knows what the "Federal Communications Commission" is. Can we get the country name in there somehow? Something like "In the United States, Internet broadband is reclassified as a utility, enforcing net neutrality rules for the service." Isa (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added US to the FCC part, which should make it clear on the country. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support due to significance not only within the US, but globally as movement grows to implement this type of regulation. I agree with JoshuaKGarner that it would be preferred that the article mention what Title II regulations apply here, as it looks like they cherry-picked authorities in this decision. However, I don't think that needs to be mentioned within the blurb, and I don't think that it necessarily needs to be included in the article at time of posting. Additionally, please link to the section for the bold link, not just the article.Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support provided the article is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is lengthy but the update is a bit skimpy. I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit. But I agree that this ruling is important and worthy of a posting on ITN. Jusdafax 00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative note: There is clear consensus to post this, but there are referencing issues on the article that need to be addressed before this gets posted to the main page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like there are sufficient sources in the paragraph now, anything else needed before it's posted? Nakon 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Section 5 still has an unreferenced tag on it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the whole thing. It was written in 2008 and has been unreferenced since then. Isa (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Apparently the regime has wasted no time in blocking many overseas websites from access to the US, in violation of the principle of no prior constraint. This is a huge, extralegal power grab. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which regime? And do you have a link? I'd like to read about it. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 06:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not the NK regime. The overseas sites being down seems to have been a glitch last night, perhaps due to the internet outage out west, the sites are back up now. That in no way downplays the importance of this huge power grab, the details of which the FCC is keeping secret from Congress. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportMonopoly31121993 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support issues like ACTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership make US relevant overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Very nice, @Coffee: thanks for posting. It would be helpful though if the word "utility" could be wikilinked as utility. At the same time, the last three words "for the service" can be omitted to save space. --PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Joshua Leakey

February 25

---

Afghanistan avalanches

--Bongwarrior (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when ready That is a major event, but yes, the article needs work before it can be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have moved the page to 2015 Afghanistan avalanches per the sources. Everymorning talk 17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when ready 187 deaths obviously rises to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major catastrophe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as major catastrophe, and an event of great regional significance. Note that the article could really use more details. Mamyles (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article has yet to be developed to the length/quality where it is suitable for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable article. who cares about the length as long as the article is not a stub. we have posted articles in the past that are short.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @BabbaQ:: Please provide a diff where we posted an article that was this short. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Three-parent baby

[Posted] Uherský Brod shooting

'''tAD''' (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wasn't 100% sure about notability, but the good quality of the article leans me in the support direction. Spencer^T♦C 03:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Supprt per Spencer and also "worst mass shooting in the country's peacetime history". —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - ITN is not a death ticker, but eight dead in a shooting will almost always be posted, unless it takes place in a war zone. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - "It was the worst mass shooting in the country's peacetime history." Significant enough for me. Joshua Garner (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per number of casualties in a peacetime shooting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Good article, universal support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

---

[Closed] Eddie Ray Routh found guilty of murder

[Closed] Obama vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline

[Closed] Chris Gayle double century

February 23

---

February 22

---

[Closed] Sinking of the ML Mostofa-3

[Posted] 87th Academy Awards

MASEM (t) 04:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They should be posted in about 1h. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is being updated as they air, and has been sourced including details of the ceremony, so this should be ready to go when Best Picture hits (this has been the historical way to present, unless something bigger happens). --MASEM (t) 04:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that the Birdman article is in good shape for main page/ITN. Just a matter of the Oscars page being updated. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. The minimum updates are there and the articles will be expanded further. I'll go with the standard prose for Oscars - X wins Y awards, including best picture (last year was special since Gravity won more awards). --Tone 05:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tone: Really? Despite what Masem said about the ceremony article, there is virtually nothing in either of those articles that could not have been written before the ceremony. The only modifications are the addition of the sentence The film won four Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography to the Birdman (film) article. The ceremony article has no prose update whatsoever, but just bolding added to the winners. What are you seeing? -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, what else can you add? Whom people thanked upon receiving the awards? For sport events, it is reasonable to expect to have a game summary or something, but here it's just who won ... Admittedly, the winners could be written in prose but that's as far as it gets. I may be wrong, though. --Tone 05:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See 86th Academy Awards. Granted, we don't need it to be a featured list yet, but, the ceremony article can talk about happenings during, you know, the ceremony. It doesn't even note extremely basic observations, like the fact that Birdman won four awards -- the blurb we have on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 06:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is stuff that can come in time - the basic foundations (including the wins, nominees, performers/presenters, and even some of the preliminary controversy) are in place that the article is clear and understood, but more details (such as what I believe will be commented on, the Lady Gaga/Julie Andrews part, will get more news tomorrow and the days after, but that won't change the core content). Adding this type of material is what engaging in editors/readers looking at the front page will help without confusing them with an article without that necessary structure or existing referencing to build up on. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's great, but ITN is not a news feed and "big events" should not get a special pass under the guise of "that can come in time". ITN is about showcasing articles updated to reflect current events. What is considered sufficiently updated is subjective, but 87th Academy Awards and Birdman (film) are woefully insufficient. We don't need to be the first to tell the world which movie won Best Picture. -- tariqabjotu 06:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already in sufficient shape before the ceremony - it had the structure, the nominees sourced, and as the ceremony progressed, people updated it. There will be some reflect on the nature/criticism of the ceremony in the next few days, of course, and we're not excepting GA quality material for ITN items. We do this a lot with RDs too - the obits that come with a notable person's death are what often help to expand an article to GA or better quality, but we don't expect that to be in place when RD is posted, just that the major capture of the person's life is there and well sourced. (Note that I do agree the expedited way this was posted following my nom, I'm concerned with - even an ITNR element should be given a few hours to gain article quality input, but I don't think compared to past noms we are missing much here. ) --MASEM (t) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could an admin deal with the deletion tag on the infobox template? Thanks. Lugnuts^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that's possible unless the infobox in the article is "subst"ed and the warning removed... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you'd have to "noinclude" the TFD tag, so that it only appeared on the template page and not on the pages using the template, but then fewer people would know that the template was up for discussion at TFD. Bencherlite^Talk 21:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- Why are events that support commercial interests (NASCAR or some film company) being fast tracked onto the In The News Section? We normally spend far more time on discussing topics and reaching consensus than a couple of hours.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Academy Awards are in ITNR, indicating that its importance has already been decided by consensus. It can be posted quickly, provided that it has been sufficiently updated and does not have a large amount of opposes at time of posting. Feel free to debate the inclusion of this event in ITNR if you think it lacks importance. Mamyles (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Daytona 500

Nominator's comments: The subject of the article is certainly notable as this is arguably the biggest race of the season; the 2011 and 2013 runnings of the race were also successful ITN candidates. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until the "Race results" table is filled in. Otherwise, it's a good article, and the Daytona 500 is the single most important race in NASCAR, second among American races only to the Indy 500. Winner of the Daytona 500 is often better known in any given year than the series champion at the end of the year. If the article is finished (and needs only a little polish to do so) I'd support fully on the significance. Plus, the green-white-checker finish made for some exciting racing... --Jayron32 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we already post the Indy 500, there's no need for more of the same. Oh, and "Race details[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]" at the top of the infobox is bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe both of the above issues have been resolved; the table is complete and the refs are no longer all in the infobox. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no reason not to post it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an odd support rationale. Would there therefore be no reason not to post every result from this year's worldwide Formula One season in that case? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you realize that the Daytona 500 is more significant than some ordinary Formula One race. The Daytona 500 is probably the most important race in NASCAR and I don't agree with not posting it just because we already posted the Indy 500. To me, your oppose just looks like another part of your 'anti-posting of American events at ITN' crusade. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. I just question the value of a vote that says "no reason not to post it". I have no inkling about the Daytona 500 whatsoever, it's a bit too introspective for my liking. And yes, the Australian Grand Prix is significant, as is the San Marino GP, the German GP, the British GP etc. We've already got Indy 500, not seeing why this is necessary at all. But, in any case, thanks for your personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I haven't made any personal attacks, but you're welcome anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well other than accusing me of being on an anti-American crusade, no. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, most important NASCAR race in America. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under that impression too, which is why I'm surprised this isn't ITN/R. (I do know enough to know that this isn't in opposition to the Indy 500 in any way.) I'm no fan of stock car racing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment can someone explain why this is "the most important NASCAR race in America"? (Do they have NASCAR races outside America by the way?) If it is of such high order, I would suggest it be added at ITNR as Muboshgu notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "in America" part wasn't necessary (although I also don't know if NASCAR holds any races outside of the U.S.). I just don't know enough about stock car racing so I could be wrong on its importance, but I feel I've heard more about it than any other individual NASCAR race over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They tried to go to Japan and Mexico a couple of times, but the forays (which were tests - one was a series of exhibitions, the other was a series of lower tier races) didn't pan out. I think a better way to describe it would be the world's premier stock car race...and stock car racing does have prominence in North America, South America and Oceania. Opposing it bc the Indy 500 gets posted makes no sense. They are entirely different cars and series. That's like opposing the Epsom Derby bc the Grand National gets posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lot of Americans above the Mason–Dixon line I don't know much about stock car racing. The best I can contribute to the debate is to quote the Daytona 500 article: The Daytona 500 is regarded as the most important and prestigious race on the NASCAR calendar, carrying by far the largest purse. The article Sprint Cup Series states Regular season races were previously held in Canada, and exhibition races were held in Japan and Australia. The Daytona 500, its most prestigious race, had a television audience in the U.S. of about 16 million viewers in 2009.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know I'm not totally off base (I'm also a blue stater above the M-D line). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, in absolute viewing terms, it's about as popular on the TV in America as a Christmas episode of Eastenders or Coronation Street in the UK, a country with 1/6 the population of the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the venerable Coronation Street, the world's longest-running soap opera on TV ever, were ever canceled, it would be brought to ITN and posted within minutes as being a very huge deal. The comparison seems amiss.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point entirely. The previous editor wasn't talking about the cancellation of the Daytona 500, it was about the popularity. Seems that the Daytona 500 is as popular in domestic television terms as a Christmas edition of Coronation Street or Eastenders. There was no discussion over the cancellation of the soap, and even then, it would never be posted within minutes because this isn't English Wikipedia, it's American Wikipedia. You know that, of course. The fact that 16 million Americans watch the Daytona 500 is, well, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal. But I think it may be as big as some other sports items that make it to ITN. In US terms in the sports consciousness (I really can't comment on it's significance internatinally) it's about as big as the Kentucky Derby, a golf major, the Indy 500 (which again is an entirely different type of racing), etc. It's bigger than any marathon I'd say. Of course some of those events have a substatial profile outside the US. I think the IP editor above hit it right that NASCAR is the preeminent Stock car racing competition which is a popular sport internatinally. The Sprint Cup, the season champtionship, is an ITN event so perhaps NASCAR is covered. But I think for Americans who are not week to week followers of NASCAR, the Daytona 500 is much more of a household name--everybody's at least heard of it. So I dunno. I'm not for or against this (I'm neutral).--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some explanation beyond "It's important' or "why not post it" or "most significant NASCAR race in America" etc. I appreciate it. I still don't see why it's more important than any Formula One Grand Prix and certainly it's less global, although we're not allowed to say that. If it's such a shoo-in, it should be at ITN/R. Right now, it's not, and I can't see it's significance beyond a few fanboys in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd argue that the Daytona 500 is leaps and bounds more notable than its series championship, which is more or less decided on a gimmick these days. It's an ITN/R discussion probably, but I believe you could probably drop the championship and add the Daytona 500. The Indy championship and the FIA World Endurance Championship aren't included, but the premier races of those series are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am the nominator and obviously cannot vote based on that rationale; however, I would like to present my case again. The Daytona 500 is the biggest race of the season; it's nicknamed the "Super Bowl of NASCAR" for a reason. I've also taken care of the issues presented by others during the nomination. Also, The Rambling Man, you state above, "I just question the value of a vote that says 'no reason not to post it'," and yet, in your vote, you state that there is "no need for more of the same". To me, that basically says, "There is no reason to post it", which, by your logic, should be questioned as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to slam you or make a personal attack as I know you are an experienced and prolific editor (what you've done with The Boat Race is absolutely incredible), but I am trying to make an argument that this is more than just your typical Formula 1, IndyCar, NASCAR, etc., race. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just a side note, the "in America" part certainly is not necessary. The Camping World Truck Series runs one race in Canada, other than that all the races take place in America. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can't tell the difference between this and the Indy 500, but it's clear that after reading some of the comments, they're very different. However, Indy 500 is ITNR and yet NASCAR doesn't appear to have an ITNR. It would be instructive to see a discussion where the prominence of this race is discussed and acknowledged. Right now, I see it as a race on a calendar in the US. It doesn't seem any different to any Grand Prix, moreover it has more niche interest than the Grands Prix. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: It's a prestigious race which receives the most media coverage and awards the highest amount of prize money, similar to Formula 1's Grand Prix of Monaco or IndyCar's Indianapolis 500. NASCAR's biggest and most prestigious race is the Daytona 500. Also, while it's not ITNR yet, as I mentioned above, the 2011 and 2013 Daytona 500s both made it onto the main page at ITN. Finally, I guarantee that the Daytona 500 is going to garner much more attention than this week's upcoming race, the 2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500. Suffice it to say I certainly won't be nominating that one here next week. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as it's not ITNR, why is this year's Daytona 500 more important than last year's which wasn't posted? I'm genuinely curious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That I cannot fully explain, but I'll try my best. I truly believe this is notable enough to be a ITNR, I'm just unsure why it wasn't posted last year. Perhaps nobody in the WikiProject thought of nominating it. But as I've said before, it's not like it hasn't been posted before; as the banners on the talk pages note, the 2013 race was posted as was the 2011 race, but those happened before I joined the NASCAR WikiProject, so I don't know why those two passed nominations while the 2012 and 2014 races were not even nominated to begin with. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two things then: (1) place a suggestion at WP:ITN/R so this can be fully debated for perennial inclusion and (2) good luck with this nomination. It has plenty of support, and the article, while in need of a few more references in the main race section, is in decent condition. It's a lovely American tradition, watched by Americans and supported by Americans, and declared super notable by Americans. I still can't see why it's more notable than, say, the San Marino Grand Prix, but I've tried to make my point too many times. It is what it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Would you recommend me doing that now or after the nomination is either posted or closed? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll be fine to do it now. This nomination, in principle, has complete support other than from me, so there's no indication that you're trying to bypass the system. A couple of editors have indicated surprise that it's not already an ITNR article, so it should be a safe bet that, at the very least, you can initiate the discussion. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose. I admit to not being terribly familiar with auto racing but I don't see why the first race of NASCAR is important enough to post any more than posting the Opening Day of baseball or football. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain as it seems you are not familiar with the subject. Opening day of baseball does not award players with as much prestige, money, and fame as the Daytona 500 does. The race is more than just opening day, just as the Indy 500, an ITNR, is more than just the 5th race of the IndyCar season. Hopefully this makes some sense, feel free to comment again if you still don't understand. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Regarded as the biggest event in the NASCAR season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are already 8 annual ITN/R events in this area of sport, which is more than any other sport. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I think I have to curiously challenge the above opposition. So you're saying that because there's eight, that means we can't have another one? I'm not sure the argument is justified here. To me, all it's saying is that there are because we already have X number of annual events, we can't have another newsworthy item in this area of motorsports (NASCAR only has one, by the way, the rest are all other forms of motorsport) be featured in ITN. This isn't even an ITN/R, so I don't see how "There are already 8 annual ITN/R events" is a legitimate reason to oppose. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could rephrase my objection that there are eight events annually in the motorsports area that consensus has deemed more noteworthy than this one. Given the frequency of sports events worldwide, I don't feel that including non-ITN/R sports events promotes diversity of the ITN content, unless there is some unusual reason to do so, such as an important world record. As a side issue, I find it strange that motorsports has such a high representation on ITN/R; with 8 events it is joint top, with film and exhibitions/fairs/summits. Espresso Addict(talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Espresso Addict for the clarification, I greatly appreciate it. I'll make one last argument; as I've stated above, the Indy 500 is to IndyCar as the Grand Prix of Monaco is to Formula 1 as the Daytona 500 is to NASCAR. With that, if IndyCar and F1's biggest races are notable enough, why wouldn't NASCAR's be? The sport is just as big, if not bigger, in the United States as the Indy 500, and Grand Prix of Monaco, not to mention, as Johnsemlak states above, the Kentucky Derby or U.S. open or a golf or tennis major. Thus, I believe this is a big enough event to make it onto the main page at ITN.

Also, the race is now over 24 hours old, so if this is going to pass I'd like to see a decision soon. Would it be possible for an admin to look over this once one gets a chance? Again, this is my first attempt at ITN, so if the answer to posting this is no, I completely understand; however, I hope my fellow editors will consider the arguments given by me and all those who have supported this nomination. Again, many thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not a fan of car racing--I am totally uninterested, yet know scores who are---but this is once again huge in comparison with many other sports events, and when one hears the word America in every single oppose one expects an admin to summarily dismiss such opposes per the policy at the top of the page. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Article and update seem up to snuff, and this nomination has sufficient support. Whether this should be ITN/R, or whether the Sprint Cup champion should be removed from ITN/R, is a discussion for elsewhere. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't know how this has been posted. There are actually more opposes listed here than supports. Can an admin please take this down.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Because consensus is not counting of votes, and the posting admin considers the strength of the arguments for and against when deciding what to do. --Jayron32 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Tomb of the Suleyman Shah

February 21

---

[Posted] RD: Clark Terry

Nominator's comments: I've never heard of him before coming across this NPR story. From the lede of the article, he was "an American swing and bebop trumpeter, a pioneer of the flugelhorn in jazz, educator, and NEA Jazz Masters inductee." Article mentions several other awards/honors, so he appears to be at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, a major figure, over seven decades, played with all the jazz greats. Many awards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, when article improved. Influential jazz musician; the Telegraph obituary [25] states he had a "deep and lasting influence on the course of jazz" and was the "first African American to become a regular in a band on a major US television network." The article requires work on the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality only Was on my way to possibly nominate this myself. Clearly a great in his field, a pioneer in his field, broke racial boundaries being one of the first contract African-American musicians on network television. If only our article was given a little care, we could post this. It's not main page ready as of now, though. If anyone fixes the referencing problems, consider this vote a full support without me having to change it. --Jayron32 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jayron (That is, opposing on article quality only). The bios from NYTimes and Telegraph would likely help in the short term. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems like there's been a fair bit of improvement of the article, seems fine to post. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Definitely meets the Jerry Tarkanian standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Basketball Blues? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Marked ready No opposition, except on quality, and I do believe the quality has been addressed. There are no more "citation needed" tags remaining. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Dan Topolski

February 20

---

[Closed] RD: John Willke

[Closed] The Marina Torch

[Closed] Gemalto

February 19

---

[Closed] Antonio Ledezma arrested

February 18

---

[Closed] RD: Jerome Kersey

[Posted] Limpet teeth

Nominator's comments: Reportedly new strongest biomaterial. Once the orange tag is dealt with, I think the article is basically ready. Brandmeister^talk

• Support. Well, "blister my barnacles"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is propably not most exiting news for our readers, but it is important and interesting for us as an encyclopedia. SeraV (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Science articles have been under-represented here lately, and this is well notable to the materials field. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but most of the target article is unreferenced. Formerip (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but like Formerip, the article needs work before it can be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but article needs some serious TLC before posting. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - interesting news.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this will give our readers something interesting to chew on. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think we should be showcasing "this hot-blooded little beast, the randiest of the gastropods" on the front page! Wikipedia is a family show. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, as we know, a family also involves adults. Brandmeister^talk 18:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like maybe a sequel to The Incredible Mr. Limpet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting and novel! Also, fairly wide coverage in the popular press. Also, I'm guessing the above post is a joke (though Poe's law may strike), so can it please be marked as such. It looks like a legitimate vote now. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifty Shades of Limpet. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment I feel that the part of the target article that discusses that teeth does not explain or describe anything at all about the structure of the biomaterial or why it is so strong. People turn to Wikipedia to get a better treatment than the lay media that alerted them to the story in the first place. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I demand a refund. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulled, sorry, I went straight to the section without checking the rest. Stephen 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip, man! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This is like pulling, er... Formerip (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been tidied (thanks to everyone who helped) I've reposted. Smurrayinchester 09:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture This really needed an image as I initially had no clue where these teeth were and the article didn't make it clear. I was pleased to find that we have a good one which has been added to the article and I've added some other images to help readers understand the general anatomy of the creature. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Battle of Debaltseve

[Posted] New president of Greece

--Jenda H. (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From President of Greece, it looks like this position is entirely ceremonial. The Prime Minister has all of the executive power. I think precedent is not to post ceremonial position results. Mamyles (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but only if “elected” is the bold part. As Mamyles pointed out, the position itself is completely ceremonial. The indirect election, however, was held in an unprecedented manner (for Greek standards, that is), was instrumental for the current government to come in power and received much media coverage both there and abroad.--The Theosophist (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Changes in head of state are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, the President of Greece is not the "head of state." The Prime Minister is the head of state for this country, so this election is not ITNR. Mamyles (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the President of Greece article states: "The President of the Hellenic Republic, colloquially referred to in English as the President of Greece, is the head of state of Greece". The PM would be the head of government, not the head of state. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. The Head of state article even states that "The role and functions of the office of head of state may range from purely ceremonial or symbolic to the real executive power in a state." I'll create discussion about this on ITNR talk. Mamyles (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per technically pertaining to ITNR. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "You are technically correct; the best kind of correct." Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I could support this in spite of the position being ceremonial, but the article is missing some updates. Why exactly was he selected by Syriza? Why would they choose a member of the opposition ND party? In what way was the "election, however, was held in an unprecedented manner" according to User:The Theosophist (above)? Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's ITNR and adequately updated. Yes, further info in the article would be good, but in terms of the reasons he was nominated, I wouldn't be surprised if no-one outside the governing circle precisely knows, other than that Greece has a coalition government, so horse-trading will be involved. Formerip (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - still high office. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's still ITNR and still notable, and the article is reasonable enough, marked as ready as there's decent support for it too, beyond the argument over whether this should or should not be ITNR (which is a discussion going on at another place....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I would think it would be standard procedure to post info about a change at the top levels of a nation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with the presidential election article as the bold link. Bencherlite^Talk 09:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: D. Ramanaidu

Nominator's comments: Produced 150 films spanning 13 Indian languages. Made it to the Guinness book of records for the most films produced by an individual. Recipient of the Dada Saheb Phalke Award, highest award in Indian cinema. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article will need work at least to fix the orange-level tags before being suitable for posting. Espresso Addict(talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. I'm in the process of improving it. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've asked the editor who placed the PoV tag to revisit the article & explain what the problem is. Espresso Addict(talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect phrases in the article like "Fortunately, as the film was a huge success" might have something to do with it. Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:) That kind of non-encyclopedic tone is relatively easy to purge; I was worried there's something more pernicious and/or less obvious. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose article is in no way of suitable quality for the main page, regardless of the possible notability of the individual, which is marginal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above rationale. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose solely on article quality. I would have wholeheartedly endorsed on significance grounds, but the articles problems are legion, and we should not advertise such an article as "the best Wikipedia has to offer". If anyone cleans up the article to a reasonable point where we'd be proud of putting on the main page, let us all know to reevaluate it. Article quality should be the first, last, and only concern here, and this one is dreadful. --Jayron32 00:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Oppose - dubious claims, improper referencing - I can't sort fact from fiction enough to tell who this person actually is. Challenger l (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made some copy-edits and the article is adequately referenced now. —Vensatry _(ping) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support You certainly did - not only does this article meet the quality standards, but someone winning a Guinness record for the number of films made in multiple languages elevates his status. This is clearly among the most influential people of his field (Indian filmmakers). Challenger l (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support great work by Vensatry (if you can fix the dab link to "Bengali" in the second paragraph of "film career", even better). Pinging Jayron32, The Rambling Man, JoshuaKGarner and Espresso Addict for them to take a look at the revised version of this article, which I think shows clearly that he was widely regarded as very important in his field. Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support agreed, good work on article quality and on highlighting the notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - all opposes appear to have been based on article quality, which has been addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

---

[Posted] 2015 Haiti carnival accident

Nominator's comments: Coverage around the world. Fairly deadly, and the prime minister of the country has declared three days of mourning. This seems significant. Everymorning talk 00:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an unfortunate accident (and I have read 20 dead) but the power line falling is not being reported as sabotage or having notable victims or long-term encyclopedic import. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the contrary, I think 16-20 deaths in what is supposed to be a holiday celebration is something that qualifies for an ITN posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mellowed Fillmore. Highly notable and an underrepresented country on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant number of deaths. A country that almost never appears on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I guess human stampedes aren't as rare as I thought, third one we've posted within a few months. Nonetheless notable. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am wondering if the blurb should be more specific as to what the accident was? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we do get more specific, I would prefer that it say a stampede, as that looks to be the cause of all deaths. In fact, it may be preferable to rename the whole article as "2015 Haiti stampede". Mamyles (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence suggests we should use "crush" and not "stampede".--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the opposite. There was a real outcry at the use of the word "crush", many sensitive editors thought it was "disrespectful" although it was still 100% accurate. Wikipedians generally prefer to obfuscate the actual cause of death and use the euphemistic "stampede" instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguable the situation when they tried to move the power line to get a float underneath, the live line fell and electrocuted those nearby, and in the rush to get away, others were run over/etc by the crowd. I think "accident" here is the right word because it's not just electrocution, and not just a crush/stampede. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is actually overwhelmingly toward using 'stampede' in our articles on the subject, for example of these none use 'crush.' Mamyles (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. We use "stampede" even though it's often inaccurate and obfuscates the actual events, to placate the more sensitive editors around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article still seems a little short and underdeveloped to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the article is bare bones, but it still seems to meet the ITN guidelines to me. Of course it could be better, but at least what's there is sourced, well presented and covers a topic we rarely touch in a location we rarely feature. Bound to have an impact on the way in which these carnival processions are conducted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, Nakon 00:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

---

[Closed] RD: Lesley Gore

[Closed] 2015 Mount Carbon train derailment

February 15

---

[Posted] Beheading of Copts in Libya

Nominator's comments: I've just created the stub article. Regarding the merits, this is clearly notable and comes a day before the Egyptian military was about to sign a breakthrough deal with France that would make Egypt the first overseas operator of Dassault Rafale jets, a deal which is very likely linked to the threat of Libya's conflict spilling over into Egypt's borders.[26] And as far as the Ongoing section is concerned, I think it is largely limited to the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, not Libya. Can't promise I will work on the article though, because I will be very busy these next few days. So I hope someone gets there soon. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I had noticed the, "in other news, ISIS has a presence in Libya that nobody knew about until now" aspect. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the largest actions so far by one of the most newsworthy topics, and as noted, now in Libya. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if article is expanded or merged into ISIL article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Different from the scope of the article in ongoing, represents an expansion of the conflict as well as a potential religious factor. Spencer^T♦C 04:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Only focuses on tip of the iceberg.[27], [28], [29]. The incident might better be part of a more general article. (The British alone lost 35,000 men getting the Nazis out of there in WWII).--Light show (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or the ISIS-berg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as covered by ongoing. To address some points from above: ISIS/L has always been formally a Sunni sectarian effort, so the "religious factor" has been present all the time. This is not even the first time that ISIS has publicized their killing Christians. Nobody believes that ISIS is operating strictly in Iraq and Syria. That they get support from various Gulf clients, Turkey, and have material cooperation with other Islamist orgs is well know, and you can go all the way back to their founding and see that. So, the geographical point doesn't hold either. This is yet another tragic and awful event in the ISIS story, but it is not a dramatic change in the status quo.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if this is expanded or merged. A rebranded Al Qaeda killing Egyptian in Libya is a new topic, not included in ongoing unless we change the ongoing pipe to "Jihad Worldwide". To adopt a recent trope, "Copt's lives matter too." μηδείς (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To add Egypt has responded by bombing ISIS targets in Libya. --MASEM (t) 06:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added it (Reuters). Sca (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking ready, article has been expanded. Spencer^T♦C 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The Blurb should probably be updated to reflect the political and military response; the Fact Al-Sisi's protecting the Copts as Egyptians in the wider world context is significant. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a good suggestion, do you have any ideas for a blurb? I can't think of anything that's not too long. Spencer^T♦C 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added an alt-blurb, and would be as happy with Copts as Coptic Christians, which I added only for clarity to those not aware Copts are Christian. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb. The military response makes this particularly notable. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated blurb posted — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am currently developing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya and I believe it should be linked in the blurb → Egypt strikes Libyan ISIS targets after a video is released showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians.. @The Rambling Man, Spencer, and Medeis: I'd be glad to address any recommendations you have for the article before it is posted. What say you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Louis Jourdan

Nominator's comments: Was a notable French actor during his time, has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, and has appeared in some notable films --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support iconic figure, known worldwide by anglo- and franco-phones. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to meet DC2, as indicated by his body of work and Walk of Fame stars. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another of a fading generation departs; definitely looks more than notable enough. Article is also in good shape. Challenger l (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A film career that spanned 53 years and was also a Chevalier de la Legion d'honneur. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Philip Levine (poet)

Nominator's comments: Was the U.S. Poet Laureate (They don't give this title to any poet), won the Pulitzer Prize, and the article is in good shape --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as meeting DC2. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Pulitzer Prize & laureate positions, once article adequately referenced (the Work & Awards sections are currently largely unreferenced). Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on this, TDKR Chicago 101, but the "Work" section still needs attention. Espresso Addict(talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with article in good enough shape for posting (I'd recommend expanding about his works, but that can come in time). --MASEM (t) 21:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support appalling that such a prominent person has such a weak article. No doubt as to his significance, the article needs work but it's probably good enough considering "modern standards". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember you wanted to cut back on the sarcasm? Does not help anyone. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly misunderstand "sarcasm". My point is completely true and reflect "modern standards". It would be better if you stopped trying to create conflict and started to act constructively here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is anyone minded to post this before it goes stale? I think there's agreement that the subject is sufficiently notable but concern over the article's quality; no-one appears to be working on it significantly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted' — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

---

[Posted] Protests over murder in Turkey

Nominator's comments: While violence against women is widespread in Turkey, such cases are very rare, and anger and protests to this extent are unprecedented. Third most popular/shared story on the BBC at the moment. GGT (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support based on the fact that this is a really significant story in its context, per GGT. It won't strike to the hearts of many of our regular demographic, but nevertheless it's important. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, especially given the unprecedented developments of the Protests section. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems to have caused significant reaction in Turkey. SeraV (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Widespread protests garnering much attention, related to a significant issue in Turkey. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable protest movement with solid article updates. Someone should mark this as ready. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marked ready, I didn't see any problems with the article, added altblurb linking to protests, since they are what makes this an encyclopedic issue. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 08:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Michele Ferrero

[Posted] 2015 Berlin Film Festival

Nominator's comments: Among the regular top 3 film festivals (Berlin, Cannes, Venice) we list here. Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think Golden Bear needs to be an article topic , since that's tied directly to the film festival (though obviously the winner of the festival's premiere award should be named in the blurb). --MASEM (t) 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, the way I used wikilinks there is inspired by how Oscar entries were made (with both the Academy Awards ceremony and the trophy linked). I'm not emotional about it, but definitely the newsbit should be ITN. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Taxi article is just about adequate. ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ITNR. SeraV (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ITN/R. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tariqabjotu, David Levy, Stephen, Espresso Addict? :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Cheers from - surprise - Berlin! ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with 65th Berlin International Film Festival bolded. I have left the image for those more capable with such matters. Espresso Addict(talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I've updated the image. —David Levy 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Copenhagen attacks

Nominator's comments: Lead story on Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the BBC. This seems to be pretty big news. Everymorning talk 19:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Fairly obvious candidate. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support low damage attack but judging by the category, shootings in Denmark are rare as rocking horse poop. Add to that the deliberate targeting of controversial cartoonist, you have a story just about worth ITN. Article is just beyond stub, so all well. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shootings are not really that rare. A few years back some rockers and immigrants gangs went at each others in a fight over the market for marijuana. Politically motivated shooting are very unusual, though. Thue (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support only if determined to be terrorism, which the police(while investigating it assuming so) do not know yet. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the Danish are counted amongst the righteous gentiles. I cannot imagine a better rationale than that. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - another attack by (presumably) coward muslim terrorists. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they cowards? Attacking a place with multiple police officers is hardly the act of a coward. Thue (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would label anyone using guns and shooting at unarmed people cowards, so they are muslim terrorist cowards.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose based on current information. If it does turn out to be terrorism-related, then yes, but this is akin to similar public shooting incidents around the world; it's tragic but ultimately not a significant event in the larger scope. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, obviously it is terrorism-related. While we don't have the a court's word for it, the context makes it blindingly obvious what the intent was. Any normal criminal activity would not target a place with multiple police officers present with that kind of attack. It wouldn't be on the front page of the New York Times right now if they did not think it was virtually certain to be terrorism-related. Thue (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "terrorism" is thrown around a lot these days to tag things that aren't really "terrorism" to make them sound more ominous than they should be. It's a weasel word for all purposes. Yes, the intent was to terrify one or more people, but this is far different than what is normally called "terrorism". Technically, that shooting in the US was terrorism too, by the same logic, but it's not being called that. Now if it does turn out that there's connection to, say, ISIS here, and was purposely done for that, then yes, that's fair game. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on now. Obviously this is terrorism. I know that "terrorism" is thrown around a lot, and that is stupid, but it is equally stupid to refuse to label obvious terrorism for terrorism. And I have no idea what you are referring to with "that shooting in the US". Thue (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable shooting, very likely that Islamic terrorists are behind the attack. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. "Presumably" and "very likely", to quote from two supporters above, provide no basis for an enyclopaedic response to a developing event. Until the motive for the attack can be more safely confirmed, there is nothing about it that warrants coverage. It is interesting that Chapel Hill has (correctly) not been posted on the ground that the motive as a hate crime or terrorist incident has not yet been clearly established. Yet we are much more ready to assume motives here.... --Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mkativerata: I must say, the Muslim students were not famous, they did not draw caricatures offending Christians, and they were not hosting a freedom of speech event when they were killed. Quite absurd to make the comparison you have made. --AmaryllisGardener^talk 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The comparison is entirely apt. Your full rationale for support is "very likely that Islamic terrorists are behind the attack". At the time of writing, you had no basis for that view other than your own original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think after the subsequent attack targeting a synagogue, the motive as a copy cat terrorist attack following the Paris attack is clear. But, that said, there is no requirement that a motive be established before postings for in the news article content.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Danish PM has said it is terrorism: [30]331dot (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We feel certain now that it was a politically motivated attack, and thereby it was a terrorist attack" from that article, to me, is very poor logic, because there are a lot of politically-motivated attacks that happen every day, and as such would qualify as "terrorism". This is the issue with sensationalism. I don't question it being politically-motivated but we really need to be caution at ITN about taking anything that is arbitrarily labelled as "terrorism" as such. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now Tragic, but shootings with one fatality happen almost everywhere. I'd say even for Europe this is not an outstanding terrorist incident. Brandmeister^talk 21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still oppose following the shooting at the synagogue, the shooting of the suspect, and the massive international response?

• Support - Current thinking is that it was an assassination attempt, not exactly run-of-the-mill terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 21:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it seems that cartoonist Lars Vilks was the target. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose As 2015 Chapel Hill shooting is not a terrorist attack so is this incident. Think for yourself and stop being mouthpiece of dictators and their proxies like CNN. Moorrests (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of your personal perception of this being a terrorist attack and our "brainwash" by CNN. It is a matter of if the incident is to be posted or not. Otherstuffexists is not a good reasoning either.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moorrests clearly knows nothing of which he speaks, unless he's being satirical. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Bugs and BQ. His comment has nothing to do with this getting this to discussing the appropriateness this has for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener^talk 00:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The top story for me on http://cnn.com is "Terror attack in Denmark". I'm not saying ITN should call it terror yet but it seems far more likely than Chapel Hill where a neighbour shot three unknown people in a private home, in a country with huge numbers of shootings. It's already widely assumed to be terror. There has been a second shooting with three injured at Great Synagogue (Copenhagen). It's not known whether it's connceted but such shootings are extremely rare in Denmark. The first attack used an automatic weapon, also very rare in Denmark. I haven't seen reports of the weapon in the second attack. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There has been a second shooting in Copenhagen, though it hasn't been verified it is related to the first. This increases the severity and conspiratorial level of the incident. BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaKGarner (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two shootings, with the French Ambassador a target, in the first attack, and police wounded in the second, with a victim shot in the head? This is Denmark, not Dallas, (no offense to Texas), and the attack on this liberal, and righteous among the nations that stood up to Hitler on on Valentine's Day is a symbolic and heinous attack on freedom and human rights. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we dial down the soapboxing please? Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marked ready, well updated and heavy support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Shootings are not encyclopaedic, unless they involve the deaths of significant people. No significant people died, and hence this is not significant. RGloucester — ☎ 02:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• but they were the targets. Abductive (reasoning) 02:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Should we clear out Category:Assassination attempts then? It would have been more clear-cut if Lars Vilks had been killed but we haven't posted an ITN story in 4-5 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, people will be looking for this. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not that deadly and little longer-term significance. Neljack (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you possibly know that? You can see into the future? Got any stock market tips for us? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. 1 dead is way below the threshold for ITN. That goes for spree shootings and for terrorist attacks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @LtNOWIS: There is no death requirement for posting to ITN. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Removing "ready". Doesn't seem like the discussion has reached consensus. Spencer^T♦C 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as obvious candidate. The shooting has grabbed headlines worldwide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This appears to be a copycat of the Paris attacks, first attacking a free speech event with Mohammed cartoonist, later attacking a synagoue where a Jewish guard was killed. May just be luck that the fatalities was lower. These kind of attacks have a major effect on the political and societal climate in many European countries which are having much of the same issues with extremism and terror threats. Iselilja (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's worth taking a second to put this into context, gun attacks are extremely rare in Denmark, especially those related to terrorism. The low death count (three including the gunman) should not cloud judgement when it comes to assessing the significance of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not an everyday thing in Denmark, headline news around the world and article is in pretty decent shape. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb will need tweaking to take account of this morning's developments but this is a leading international story and is ready to post. Bencherlite^Talk 09:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Tried an alt blurb, it's rubbish but closer than the original blurb... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The notability of a terrorist or any other type of attack does not depend on "body count". Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- this is a big story and this is also a good article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Has this not been posted yet. It is kind of ridiculous that a world wide covered story has not been posted so many hours after it happened.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not a news ticker, nor a newspaper. We can and should take time to assure that we are posting quality articles and appropriate ITN stories. People who are coming to WP to learn about breaking news are coming to the wrong place - its like going to McDonalds to get gourmet food. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not posting a news story like this within atleast a couple of hours after the synagogue attack is weird. If we are not a "news ticker" then why do we have a ITN section. Well, now it is posted. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long described, to highlight articles of good quality that are in the news as to attract editors to help improve those articles, like we have for all other main page sections. For things like ITNRs and RDs, where the articles have likely been established, we're judging on article quality and the like, but for other things like events, we need to make sure that enough information about the event is know to 1) assure the article will be notable per NEVENT, 2) we can write more than a stub about it and 3) make sure that the article is in good enough shape so that new editors know where to inject new material. In this case, details of what actually happened and likely cementing the shootings as notable was after the second incident and the subsequent take down of the suspect as to learn identity and motive. That takes time for the news cycle to actually catch up; further, as long demonstrated before, we want to make sure that we allow for about ~12 hr to give editors from across the world a chance to comment. Given that we do often reject articles on single public shootings (see the Chapel Hill shootings below), this was not a clear-cut ITN story. Hence, waiting for both the assured details of the story and the article quality are necessary elements of ITN. If people need news, that's what BBC and CNN and other sites are for; we're going to provide good quality summary articles once we can actually write to that. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that the Chapel Hill shootings was a reason for this delay in posting this particular article. Some users felt that why should this be posted if the other one was not. Anyway, it has been posted. Time to move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- KTC (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Gary Owens

February 13

---

[Closed] John Kitzhaber resigns

[Closed] Cristina Kirchner accused

[Posted] RD: John McCabe

Nominator's comments: McCabe was a prolific composer, who wrote over 200 works, including seven symphonies. He was also a pianist, who made several recordings. He was awarded a CBE in 1985. Gramophone call him "One of Britain’s finest composers in the past half-century". JuneGloom07 Talk 15:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but some work needed to flesh out the article and improve the referencing. He won the Ivor Novello Award for classical music last year, described in various features as "prestigious" or similar, and that plus his long and distinguished career makes him suitable for RD. Bencherlite^Talk 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Bencherlite, the article needs a bit more work. Otherwise a notable RD candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He has two awards in his article, which are the only notable features besides a list of music he wrote. He was awarded the Ivor Novello Award once, which is given to about 15 musicians/composers in Britain a year. He was also appointed a commander in the Order of the British Empire, which is given to around 100 people a year. While it looks like he was a good composer, neither of these awards make a strong case that he is top of his field. Mamyles (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, whilst there are indeed a number of Ivor Novello Awards in different musical fields, there is only one for classical composers each year. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I think the article belies his importance based on the BBC; while my understanding of the awarding of the CBE is that it's uncommon but not rare (unlike fully named "Sir"s), it's equivalent to a US Presidential Medal for civilians, and as such puts him up there. But that begs the question on the article quality (not so much in sourcing) if this could be improved better. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the "One of Britain’s finest composers in the past half-century" assessment from the author of his entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. The article could be further fleshed out but appears to have no major issues on a quick scan. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as per Espresso Addict. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have done some expansion of the article and believe it is now reasonably fleshed out & referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - after additional work from Espresso Addict I think this article is ready to be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Please revert if this is inappropriate, but no ITN admins appear to be active this afternoon & consensus seems adequately clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Val Fitch

February 12

---

[Closed] RD: Steve Strange

[Posted] RD: Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat

Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Nik Aziz was a giant of Malaysian politics. For over two decades he was the "Spiritual Leader", and national figurehead, of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party. He also governed the state of Kelantan for 23 years, often standing alone during a period in which the Barisan Nasional coalition dominated the rest of Malaysia. During this time he achieved the unique feat of governing with quite conservative, often hardline, Islamist principles, yet maintaining a very high level of popularity. But it is not his tenure leading a state government that makes him significant; it is his national standing as the Islamist leader of his generation. Bloomberg quotes an expert who, correctly in my opinion, says, "Nik Aziz was the face of political Islam" in Malaysia." --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was born to a single father. Can this be clarified? μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this somewhat; unfortunately I can't find anything about what happened to his mother and when. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, seems to be an important figure in Malaysian politics. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to be important to his field. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominatee seems to have held a governorial position, and that of minority party chief. We would not post an American with such a small resume, so I have to Oppose at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but it doesn't tell the full story. A Western comparison would be Ted Kennedy: an elected official for half a century who was the figurehead for a political movement (liberalism/Islamism). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a sufficiently prominent politician in his country to merit an RD posting, and the article is in decent shape. Medeis FWIW, ITN posted (with your support) Mario Cuomo, a US state governor who was never even leader of his party. Comparing non-Americans with Americans is not an exact science, and I'm not sure that an approach which works on the basis of converting non-American RD candidates into their American equivalent is a good one given the obvious differences. Bencherlite^Talk 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw my oppose if those with more direct experience have a higher view of the gentleman, but the article doesn't convey his importance that well. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Definitely an important figure. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Another peace agreement on Ukraine

Reiterating Medeis' point, this is an "agreement" that doesn't go into effect until Sunday at midnight - and even now there are more Russian munitions being sent in to try to secure additional territory. But if the truce occurs, and holds, then it will definitely be worth reporting here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Bob Simon

Nominator's comments: Longtime CBS news correspondent, recipient of over 40 major awards, and a senior foreign reporter for 60 Minutes and 60 Minutes II. Light show (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - wanted to add this nom the moment it happened, didn't know how to..he qualifies easily though with 27 emmys, a blurb is also a possibility..no?..article needs a bit more update, it really doesn't reflect his 50 year career and achievements.. --Stemoc 09:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if article is up to snuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the dead American ticker. Article has serious BLP issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "serious BLP issues"? The article has references, no orange tags, and on a surface read appears fine to me. Also, "dead American ticker"... real helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's 100% accurate, don't you, especially considering the next two RDs lined up are yet more dead Americans? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments like these are nonconstructive. We can't help that there's been a run of Americans dying who meet RD criteria. If you want to break it up, nominate some worthy non-Americans. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, many of them don't meet the criteria, yet the consensus being mainly American and the posting admins being mainly American means we're inundated and hence RD has now become the Dead American ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that they don't meet the criteria, and I don't agree that there's a group of Americans pushing these articles. I think we need to find a better way of dealing with this than smearing each other from across the Atlantic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Pushing niche fields like "college basketball" as being significant enough for the English language Wikipedia has gone too far. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Please stop with the "dead American ticker" disrespectful nonsense. If Bill Gates died tomorrow, would you object to RD because there's been too many Americans listed on RD lately? And if Bob's no more important than just a "dead American ticker", then why does bbc.com have his death listed as one of the top stories? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @AmaryllisGardener: Please stop with the "disrespectful nonsense" nonsense. It's a statement of fact. Right now we have a mediocre golfer and two other US sports personalities on RD, we're about to sanction two more, it's nothing more than fact. BBC.com does not have it listed as one of its top stories. It has it listed as an American/Canadian story ranking right down the bottom of the page. If your measure of notability is that it appears on the BBC main page, then be prepared to see a raft of dead Brits coming your way soon, since beyond that, there seems to be no real justification for many of these RDs, other than sheer number of US voters and admins here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: On bbc.com, below the top top story, is "CBS newsman Bob Simon dies in crash". And I also check foxnews.com, cnn.com, and nytimes.com. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the version we see in the UK, obviously, we use bbc.co.uk where this story isn't featured at all on the main page. And is that the same Fox News who declared Birmingham a no-go zone for non-Muslims? Sure, there's plenty of US coverage, no doubt at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I also don't see any issues. Could you elaborate so that we can improve? Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: if the article has issues, we should fix them. This is a wiki, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Go ahead. And nice rationale for support by the way. Seems more and more commonplace these days to just !vote and not actually offer any rationale whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? Your rationale didn't explain what's wrong with it, it has no tags. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRM: Err, the man won 27 Emmy Awards and 4 Peabody Awards. Is there anyone questioning Mr. Simon's notability to appear in the recent deaths section? Broadly, my understanding of having an "In the news" section on the main page is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight our articles and allow them to expand and improve. This line of reasoning seems to stand in direct contradiction to the idea that we would intentionally omit a notable recent death because of the poor shape an article is in. Linus's Law and all that. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps both of you have forgotten how Wikipedia works. When I made my comment, there was a CLEAR BLP violation, as evidenced by this subsequent edit. Just because I haven't rushed back to the Dead American ticker to confirm it's been removed, it doesn't mean the objection wasn't completely valid to start with. But hell, who am I to stand in the way of posting crap quality Dead American articles, regardless of such clear policy violations? Yes we definitely should omit a recent RD because of poor article shape. If you want to change that, let's update the RD criteria accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very notable, his death has gotten very much coverage. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a notable journalist. I recommend that an image be found of him for the article, if possible. Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Recognizing that the press/media is very self-congratulatory about itself, he still had a good number of awards from the field, so seems to meet our criteria. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as Ready, since article is in acceptable shape and has strong consensus. BLP issues discussed above have been remedied. Mamyles (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Masem. I was going to oppose, basically because I haven't watched 60 Minutes since The Simpsons premiered. But the list of awards is pretty impressive, and it seems like he actually did in-the-field journalism. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. --Jayron32 22:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Costa Concordia captain's conviction

Nominator's comments: Should this be posted? Abductive (reasoning) 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A conviction relating to a notable maritime disaster '''tAD''' (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Culmination of a widely-discussed international story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this was posted when it happened, re-listing it now is an anticlimax with no actual purpose. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Medeis. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Medeis. While the event itself was interesting, it has already been featured. Mamyles (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Notable criminal conviction in a notable event. Convictions are usually what is posted in other cases. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle per 331dot - I don't think it matters that we posted the event because not every major disaster also then leads to a substantial prison sentence for one of the main actors. However the article needs some work. Bencherlite^Talk 10:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Of course. Conviction in a large criminal case following on from a major disaster. We often post convictions, the fact that the case arose from a previously posted disaster is irrelevant. Also, puzzled why people say this is 're-listing' or 'it has already been featured', when it clearly hasn't been? Surely people can tell the difference between a disaster and the legal cases arising from that disaster? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unencyclopedic. The story here was the sinking itself. This particular spin-off is merely soap opera.128.214.53.18 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How often do ship's captains get sent to prison? ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just happened in Korea.128.214.53.18 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And was that covered here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless the Sinking of the MV Sewol's conviction is also included as a dual blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose combined blurb. The two events are unrelated and so should be individually featured or not featured on their own merits. That they coincidentally happened about the same time is nothing more than a coincidence. Thryduulf (talk)
• Weak Oppose We've had 2-3 items posted related to this already. Also worth linking here (but not related to my position): Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2013#.5BClosed.5D_Costa_Concordia_trial. Spencer^T♦C 21:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - bbc is reporting about the other captain's conviction today.[33] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - conviction and sentence in a worldwide news story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Deng Liqun

Nominator's comments: Major figure of Chinese politics during 1980s, was particularly influential in Communist propaganda in the lead up of Tiananmen; Article is in good quality. Colipon+(Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think this person could meet the death criteria, but the article might need some expansion to make that clearer. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - influential propaganda chief of China and one of the most powerful hard-liners. He was instrumental in ousting two liberal Chinese leaders (Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang). -Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks in good shape and the subject appears notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable individual and the article is decent enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable politician, former Secretary of the Central Secretariat of the Communist Party of China. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted/not pulled] RD: Jerry Tarkanian

[Closed] RD: Marshall Rosenberg

[Closed] Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015

February 10

2015 Chapel Hill shooting

Nominator's comments: This is getting a lot of media coverage, including from countries besides the US (e.g. see Guardian link above and The Telegraph). It is also on the homepages of BBC and CNN (although it is not the lead story on either). Everymorning talk 21:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose certainly not on the "homepage of the BBC"and a parochial incident which will have no long term impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, when I go to bbc.com and look below the story about the Costa Concordia captain on the left side, I see this story, which states that the murders "sparked global outrage." Seems significant to me. Everymorning talk 21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, did you mean "will have long term impact" or "will have no long term impact"? Because the latter certainly makes more sense. Everymorning talk 21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. No. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait If it's a hate crime, then there's potentially something here. If it's about a dispute over a parking space, then it doesn't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perp is white, so no doubt he will not be branded a terrorist, and we all be told to calm down and accept an explanation of this which ignores race and religion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait as per Muboshgu's reasoning. It's linked from the front page of bbc.com, but it might be reporters jumping to a conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb Neutral, see my comment below. It's been getting a lot of attention, and it's on the front pages of my go-to news websites to check a story's importance (foxnews.com, nytimes.com, and bbc.com). Sad, horrific incident. But I'd leave out "Muslim", let's keep it neutral for now. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Commnent. I've seen coverage of this on French TV, and the story was not the murders, but the fact that they have had so little attention from US media (whereas if the killer had been Muslim and the victims non-Muslim...). Not sure if that points to we should post (in the name of consistency) or we shouldn't (because it's not in the useless racist news). Formerip (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been getting plenty of coverage in the US. Whether it's non-muslim killed the muslim or muslim killed the non-muslim it's a big deal here. #AllLivesMatter --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as parochial routine crime. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: a neighbor has killed three people and a motive is not confirmed. This is not global news. Putting "Muslim" in the blurb is stirring as a hate crime motive is not confirmed. They are also students, neighbors, Americans and humans. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not global news." That's why BBC and Al-Jazeera, for example, are not reporting it. Oh, wait... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I agree with Muboshgu, If it is a hate crime we should post it. SeraV (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I heard world leaders are gathering in Chapel Hill to protest at Je suis Muslim rally. Also the story is trending on twitter. Moorrests (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The true motive is unknown to anyone except the perp at this point. But the global response to this may prove to be a bigger story than the murders themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we did not post the shooting of two cops in NYC or the French Deli shooting. The fact that this may have been a hate crime in no way brings it to the level of the Korean airline crash of the Russian bombing of a civilian bus we totally ignored. To address Evereymorning above, where is the nomination for Obama's request for a formal declaration of war against ISIS? In the long term, this will be a footnote's footnote. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point about Obama's request for essentially a war declaration, although it might make more sense to post that when or if Congress approves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, changed to neutral above, perhaps me being from North Carolina and all prevents me from seeing what the rest of the world sees... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it doesn't appear that this was a hate crime and either way it doesn't really rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The motive is unknown, and the story has received global coverage, so you've got it wrong on both counts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If we don't know the motive, we don't know if it was a hate crime. If it wasn't a hate crime, there's no reason to post it here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not prominently reported in UK. Seems like a routine (for US) event. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times of India covered it,[39] but maybe they don't count because they're not in the UK. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it's still being linked from the front page of bbc.com.[40] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's not being notably reported in the UK, nor is it linked from the UK BBC homepage. A trivial neighbour bust-up which resulted in a standard US finish with gun crime and deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone who claims it's a standard shooting has no basis for that claim. The motive is unknown at this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait I agree with Muboshgu's opinion. Thus we should wait on this and consider again once we know more (specifically about the actual motives of the suspect). Palmtree5551 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well according to the BBC, and digging down in the US section of the BBC website and finding the second from bottom story here, he "gave himself up to police". His wife "said that the incident had nothing to do with religion". The report goes on to note that the perp "apparently had a history of conflicts with neighbours over parking spaces". And because it's the US, you can shoot your neighbours because guns are freely available. That they were Muslims seems coincidental. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found this [41] which seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. Thus the point that we should wait on this until we know for sure outside of media speculation and speculation by the perp's wife and by people close to the victims Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The motive is unknown at this time, and anyone on this board who claims otherwise is engaging in pure speculation with no factual basis. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to keep posting this same statement every half–an–hour. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you're the first one that hasn't ignored it. Update: The motive is still unknown. Hate crime? Parking dispute? Maybe both? The alleged perp was known for wearing a sidearm in public, to intimidate others in the course of these disputes. And he called the towing company so often that they banned him. Whether the Times of India has it right that he also hated religion, I have not seen in American coverage. But to the family of the victims, it feels like a hate crime, and until proven otherwise, the possibility of it being a hate crime is still on the table. And the FBI has come into it now, too. The only valid answer here is "Wait and see." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - In America, I cannot access the British version of bbc online. So I asked about it, and those who can see it have told me that the British version of bbc online not only links to the story, but that it's currently in the top ten most-read in the UK version of the website. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Lunatic from everything I have heard today, the shooter was a madman, divorced in the 90's, whose "beef" was about a parking space. Given we're not about to post that a lunatic shot three children over a parking space, I continue my opposition to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No argument on the "Lunatic" part. It's still too early to tell what his motive was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Baseball Bugs, is the motive known yet?--WaltCip (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get back to you on that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In the news, along with news about how it isn't in the news enough. Though "leaves three people dead" is wordy and passive. I've added an alt blurb, if you don't mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Comment This seems to be increasingly prominent in news sources, including the BBC. Why the BBC is so often used, I don't know, but, yes, it's prominent on the BBC's site: I see a headline about the Turkish president questioning Obama about this, and then four more additional links discussed different angles of the story.

The problem is that while "Turkish President challenges Obama on murders" is fine for a 24-hour news website or channel that updates details as things going along, it doesn't work as the sole headline for the entire story, which is what we need here. As Baseball Bugs has (repeatedly) said, the motive is unknown at this point. So the proposed blurb is about all we can say, and, frankly, it's not very interesting. In a strange twist, I feel the media seems to be promoting this story in response to criticism for... not promoting this story (supposedly because the victims were Muslim). And to do so, they have to explore unfortunate and bizarre angles -- as a hate crime and a parking dispute. But, again, this doesn't work for us, because we can't put speculation as an ITN headline. -- tariqabjotu 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Obama has finally condemned it after pressure from the Turkish PM (who knew?) so this clearly will gain more traction. But ultimately let's not forget it's a standard local American gun crime, this time with three victims and a captured perp, whose victims happen to be Muslim. Until he confesses he hates the Muslims, it's just a neighbourly shootup. While it's making headlines, I can see the desire to post it, but is it really a long-term thing? You decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - "Hicks described himself in online posts as a 'gun-toting atheist'."[42] The notion that this is solely about a gun fanatic and not about religion is baseless speculation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As is the notion that this is about religion.--WaltCip (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why "Oppose" is the wrong answer. The right answer is "Wait and see." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Quba Islamic Institute is burned to the ground in Texas today. Is their a link with Islamophobia spread by media like CNN, Foxnews and BBC. Moorrests (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Disregarding your second sentence, I must say that is a hate crime, quite disgusting, but hate is not limited to one group of people you know. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is so disgusting that Wikipedia has posted 2015 Copenhagen attacks and not a attack on minority. Moorrests (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moorrests: I must repeat what I said above, the Muslim students were not famous, they did not draw caricatures offending Christians, and they were not hosting a freedom of speech event when they were killed. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @AmaryllisGardener: But they were all Muslims and minority even more reason to post it. Moorrests (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moorrests: The general belief is that it was over a parking space, killing a white person over a parking space, or killing a Muslim over a parking space, it makes no difference, he's a nut, and every once in a while we hear that a nut shot a person over nothing. Posting it because you think that it has to do with religion would be pushing a POV. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @AmaryllisGardener: Did you check Mr. Hicks Facebook page? I'm starting to think 9/11 was a dispute over baggage fees.Moorrests (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, link? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been taken offline by Facebook but it was up couple of days ago. It was very incriminating, a typical anti-theist or atheist posting. Moorrests (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I don't know why you'd want me to check a Facebook page that was taken down. And now you've absolutely insulted the 9/11 victims and their families. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You insulted 2015 Chapel Hill shooting victims and their families by referring the incident is over parking dispute. Moorrests (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - From what I can tell this story has recieved undue weight because the victims were Muslims. Not the opposit, sad and tragic case but really nothing out of the ordinary, except the fact that media now is reporting on medias uninterest in the story which is simply not true. There is a difference between a mad man killing three people in a fight over parking space in a gun crazed USA. And a terrorist shooting into a gallery towards people in Denmark. Terrorism in Denmark, crazed gunman in the US.. period. Secondly I would not have minded posting this article, as it has recieved major attention even though it is undue weight. But the consensus seems to be not to post so.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion it is another case of how the world overreacts when muslims are the victims, while at the same time downplaying Muslim terrorism like the story from Denmark. It is a sad case certainly, but had it been three white average Americans it would have recieved press but not even half of what it has recieved because of the fact that the victims were muslims. And that is todays truth.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, some people are like "they were from a minority, this was a hate crime" and on the other side you have "They were Muslims, they aren't humans", can't we get across that people are killed, not members of a majority/minority group were killed, that it's tragic regardless of religion/race/ethnicity? --AmaryllisGardener^talk 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What does the motive or details have to do with anything? The Copenhagen killings are topping the front page, despite being a third less deadly. Isn't that because they're being extensively covered "in the news"? Isn't that why anything goes there? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League

Nominator's comments: Global news. World record. Torqueing (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be a record for association football, but not for sports in general. The numbers are giving me a headache, but it appears that this is less than the value of the National Football League's various television rights. I could be mistaken, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I was going to oppose this as a routine contract deal between businesses, but on researching it turns out that this is indeed notable. The rights sold for double what they did in the last contract, and is a record (on amount per year). This bidding war demonstrates the increasing national significance of the Premier League. Mamyles (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Presumably, almost every time the TV rights for the Premier League are sold, it is going to set a new record for domestic football/soccer. None of the sources are very clear about what sort of record has been set, but it is almost certainly going to be narrower that "sport" (because NFL and the World Series appear to make more in TV rights) or "football" (although it's possible that this is the biggest ever single deal, the Champions League is probably more lucrative overall). Does anyone have any information that this is more than a "well, of course" type record? Formerip (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the significance is not yet outlined well in the article. Based on my (brief) research, the price paid for this national contract was almost twice the previous contract. This contract ($2.5 bil/yr) cost more per year than the current NFL contract ($800 mil/yr), even though this Premier League contract is for one relatively small country. Basically, television rights for the Premier League in the UK (population 66 million) are now worth three times as much as those for the NFL in the USA (population 320 million). Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your figure for NFL rights? According to this source the last NFL deal was $27 billion over 9 years, so that's more than $2.5 billion per year. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the headline figure above doesn't include foreign sales, it's just in the UK alone, is that the same for the NFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Formerip (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so in a country with a population over six times the size of the UK, the main sport sells TV rights for the same amount of money. Understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you've roughly got it. The question is whether that feels right for an ITN blurb. Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the radio, the ballpark calculation was that it came to £10 million per match for broadcasting rights. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used this source to come up with my figure of $800 mil/yr. Just goes to show that Wikipedia may not always be right. In any case, that the amount paid for these television rights doubled in 3 years seems interesting and notable enough for me. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per FormerIP, the rights to broadcast the English Premier League in the UK have just been purchased, per capita, for over six times the rights to broadcast the NFL in the USA. This is big potatoes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't seem to have a source for this per capita record. Plus, if the rights to the Faroese Premier League sold for a little over $2 million, that would break this per capita record. Would we post that? Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can do the math(s), the USA has a population that's around 330m vs the UK at around 60m? And no, your straw man is pointless. This is all about the record amount. The per capita argument is simply contextual to refute any possible argument that the NFL rights are in any way comparable for the audience the TV is sold to. I think you know this but I guess it needs spelling out. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except, what record are you referring to? The only thing we appear able to either source or calculate is that this is a record for EPL UK TV rights. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks to your contextual evidence, it's clearly a massive business deal that's ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the record is based on the fact of (worldwide) inflation, and has nothing to do with actual accomplishments by an objective standard. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not against having association football stories in ITN, but this seems to be more suitable for International Business Times or Forbes. Impressing sum, but so what? Everyone would still watch Premier League without any glaring difference. Brandmeister^talk 22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but leave out reference to the 'record '. The number speaks for itself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose routine business deal. SeraV (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, posting this would be disruptive to years of work building consensus that news stories such as this don't deserve an article, let alone increasing readership by display on the main page. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't have its own article, and in what sense is posting a huge business deal not something we could (and should) consider for the main page? I grant you it's not an American sport, but it's world-wide... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the 'record' being set is too pigeonholed and/or unclear to be broadly appreciated.128.214.53.18 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - This commentary from bbc.com may be of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This seems starkly routine to me, and we certainly would not post the national equivalent anywhere else in the world.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "starkly routine" - that's funny. I'm not sure when else in the rest of the world that a deal like this would equate to finishing 20th out of 20 teams would now result in prize money of £99 million. But hey, it's soccer, who cares about such a parochial game? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Where I come from, we call it football.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, if the NFL domestic TV rights were sold tomorrow for over $50 billion, are you suggesting we wouldn't be inundated with claims to post it as a "significant business deal"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: Not everything has to be about American bias at ITN/C, TRM. And it doesn't all matter about where we are from. But do you want us to include the "flagicon" template in our signatures to announce our nationality? That's what I have gotten from the four months I've contributed to ITN/C. Some Americans know that the Premier League is a big deal, and likewise I'm sure some Brits know that the NFL is. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if the NFL were to sell all of its television rights to ESPN (which in terms of the NFL viewing audience would be earth-shattering indeed), I would not support it, because it's not internationally significant enough.--WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's the point. The Premier League is truly global, unlike NFL. It's a global phenomenon. The fact the domestic rights are sold for £10m per game is incredible. Don't forget we're talking about hard cash here, not just viewers. It's internationally significant, can you show me another sport that's sold globally in such a fashion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, big record, and a big deal. (American speaking here) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose routine business deal, a side detail to sports. On a slightly different topic, I'm a bit surprised that the Premier League is the only league where its winner gets an ITN mention, when Spain and Germany get worldwide attention too...I'd rather just the Champions League '''tAD''' (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we've got a standing precedent against deals with sports channels. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This isn't just "another routine business deal" - this is the largest deal ever made for the League. The sport isn't the focus of this, it's the record that is. Challenger l (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's great to see people other than yours truly making up stats to justify importance. –HTD 23:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you elaborate on that comment? Mamyles (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Leaks

Nominator's comments: on the news globally / involves clients of HSBC from around the globe Luxsarl (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Generally we don't post investigations; possibly notable arrests but usually convictions. ITN is not for telling the world about causes. This is also a private investigation and not that of a governmental body. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Inappropriate promotion? Your comment and link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause is misleading. The article is not about “promoting a charitable, non-profit, or quasi-charitable organisation, such as a community group or legislation.” The article is about facts made available to the public - far from being promotional in any sense. Luxsarl (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I thank you for the nomination; Perhaps it was a little misleading, but my overall point is that I don't really see a reason to post this other than to embarrass this big bank and get them in trouble- which may be valid- but isn't what ITN is for. As I said, usually investigations are not posted, maybe an arrest but usually a conviction. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not confuse the involved International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with a NGO or a political group. They are just journalists. Most articles in ITN are based on some sort of "journaistic investigation". You should not insinuate that the event is to embarrass a bank or a business. Journalism is about reporting to the public issues of general interest. ITN pursuits the same goal. Whether the event may be perceived as positive or negative doesn't matter here. Luxsarl (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Just journalists" is still a private organization. ITN is not a newspaper for reporting on the public interest; it is for highlighting Wikipedia articles about subjects that are in the news. Wikinews might be better suited for that kind of story. I'm not sure what you mean by "most articles in ITN are based on some sort of journalistic investigation"; most nominations regarding criminal activity are, as I said, regarding arrests or convictions by governments. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• News organisations such as newspapers are private organisations. So? The ICIJ is a network of jouralists from reputable media organisations. "The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is a global network of 185 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories" [43]. The article Swiss Leaks is "in the news". The article is about a leaked dataset. This dataset has been investigated by journalists (Le Monde, CBS, Guardian, NDR, etc.). The article is not about criminal activity per se. Luxsarl (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This page states that a Belgian judge might issue arrest warrants, along with other countries taking legal action(like the US); I think that would be a much better hook for this story than the release of an investigation- or at least making the blurb more about the leak instead of the investigation(though this leak occurred in 2007). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested an alternate blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for critizising constructively! I support your suggestion. Luxsarl (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support this now, I've also added some other news sources. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support bank colluding with tax dodgers hiding tax money worth of billions is certainly ITN material. SeraV (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the article is unbalanced, POV and unfit for the main page. Bencherlite^Talk 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest to make it more balanced? WikiLeaks stories were posted without such concern. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old "we've posted stuff before so let's post stuff again" line of argument. Some balance would make it balanced. Three out of the five sources used in the article are from the ICIJ itself. We have allegations presented as fact: HSBC helped dictators such as Hosni Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunesia), Bashar al-Assad (Syria) to steal money from their countries. (And isn't "dictator" a non-neutral term anyway)? The leaked documents prove – "says the ICIJ / according to the ICIJ"? No, this is just presented as plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Where's the coverage of HSBC's response in all this? I have no great love of banking practices but this is just completely unsuitable for the main page in anything like its current state. Bencherlite^Talk 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There can only be balance so far as what reliable sources provide. If there are some detailing the bank's response, certainly those should be included. My point was not a line of argument, just an observation. I also don't believe "dictator" is a non-neutral term if it is applied to people elected in elections generally regarded as unfair or rigged. Saddam Hussein was reelected many times with 99% of the vote; that doesn't mean he wasn't a dictator. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Understanding that the leaks and what it implicates to the bank being important, I think we need to wait for the likely inevitable legal case against the bank that will result from this (assuming the leaked information is true). I'm not sure if now is the time to post this. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 331dot, we have no balance in this story. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by balance, it is not very likely that HSBC have followed all relevant laws here after all. This is also same bank that was found by the US to have been laundering drug money for mexican drug cartels, and have been accused to have done the same for terrorist, so this bank have known history of criminal conduct already. SeraV (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP is objective and neutral so we cannot assume that the leaked information is valid until law officials tell us this or that the bank has done anything wrong in this specific manner. As such, the article is written in a manner that already presumes the bank has done these things. We can cite that the leaked information claims that the bank did it, but we cannot say factually that they did. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countries are very unwilling to prosecute these banks because they are apparently too big for that. See that money laundering thing, HSBC was penalized for 1,9 billion and effectively found guilty yet no one from the bank was prosecuted, probably because US didn't want HSBC to lose it charter. However on this specific case, people who have used HSBC to evade taxes have been prosecuted in several countries, including France, doesn't that already prove that HSBC have done the things it is accused off. SeraV (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not designed to right great wrongs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRM has it right. We can't assume just because these cases are all associated with the bank's past wrongdoings that they are necessarily in the wrong here even if the evidence is overwhelming in that way. We cannot make the same assumptions that some in the press commonly do, presumption of guilt before any legal findings have been completed, though we can certainly express the opinions with citation that some believe this implicates the bank in guilt. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make assumptions here, we go what reliable sources are saying. And in this case they are overwhelmingly saying that HSBC has broken laws in multiple countries even. We don't have to pretend that news aren't saying that. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these sources are only reporters and the like, and not police, investigators, judges, or others in a position of authority to make that determination, then we can only express that as their opinion. The court of public opinion is not an authoratative source. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article is factual. Otherwise please make the appropiate changes! The question of guilt is not dealt with in the article. It's not really important whether the business conduct of the bank leads to charges or not for deciding whether the leak is "in the news" or not. Neudabei (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not one for conspiracy theories per se but here we have an editor called "Lux sarl" and an editor called "Neudabei" (registered five days apart) both adamant to post this. Both are relatively new editors and both have edited mainly Luxembourg articles. Just saying.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These are simply allegations at this point, and are being denied by some parties involved. I don't see why we should give credence to this report so soon. It would be better to wait for a related event of international significance, such as a conviction or sanctions. Mamyles (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose that an anti-business party is making allegations that assume one believes businesses should pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay is a joke, and a bad one. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused, this nomination is about actual tax dodgers who have hidden their money in effort not to pay all taxes they are legally obligated to pay and an bank who have been helping them to do that. SeraV (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please repeat that in proper English. It's not otherwise comprehensible. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wikipedia is not the place to "right wrongs" - and allegations of criminal acts have even been placed by some editors into BLPs as though the cries were proven facts alas. Collect (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative oppose until or if someone gets arrested. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Anwar Ibrahim imprisoned

Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. The blurb says his conviction was upheld, meaning he had already been convicted; we usually post this sort of thing when convicted, if I'm not mistaken. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view, it is this decision that is the "big news moment". His conviction by the Court of Appeal was immediately stayed pending an appeal, meaning that he never went to prison and politics pretty much continued as usual. But this is the end of the road - the highest court. It's now that he's been driven off to gaol; it's now that he's removed from the Malaysian political scene. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, we posted his original acquittal in 2012, but I cannot see (using "What links here") that the reversal of this decision by the Court of Appeal was ever nominated for ITN. Bencherlite^Talk 10:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is not about the crime or the sentence, it's about Malaysian politics. With this sentence, the only effective challenge to the ruling clique for decades is effectively over. Perhaps the blurb needs to be updated to reflect some of that background, though it's hard to see hour it can be done neutrally. GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This wouldn't be legal in the US, given he was acquitted. But the fact that the SUpreme Court has reupheld his conviction speaks volumes, and is of course an ecyclopediclly historical development. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

---

[Closed] RD: Ed Sabol

[Posted] 57th Annual Grammys

Nominator's comments: INTR. MASEM (t) 01:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once the intro is updated to more than two lines. And when the blurb includes Pearl Jam's win for Best Recording Package... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless and until some referenced prose shows up in the article. There's no prose describing the ceremony, no prose giving an overview of the major awards. A bunch of tables and charts is not enough for an article to be posted on the main page. We've got about 4 complete sentences in the whole text. If and when that is fixed, consider it ready to post. But not the state it is in right now. --Jayron32 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that the lede needs improvement to reflect the results, but consider the BAFTA award page below, which was posted without hesitation but which the page is just basically a lead and award tables, the rest of the detail of the ceremony itself can come in time. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because something substandard was posted, it shouldn't set a precedent for something else substandard to be posted. Remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once updated. Is it worth mentioning in the blurb what the winning titles were - or is there currently no precedence for this?--128.227.227.45 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past years only have mentioned the artists, not songs/albums that have won (on the basis that artists are more recognizable than the names of these. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready The tense and prose seem sufficiently updated a of this edit. We're dealing with an article that was largely written ahead of time, so unless we go into Kanye territory... μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to note that (when I added some bit of a lede to this) that past ceremonies, which have all gone through ITN/C without too much hassle, have several similarly thin pages - in that the bulk is the awards tables and very few details of the ceremony. I will agree these articles can be better, but in terms of ITN/C, this improvement is what we hope come to the table from editors seeing the ITN item and wanting to help out. The core news details (why is this important, who won, etc. ) are the things to make sure are in place. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Time's a' wastin'.... Sca (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Postin' --Tone 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beck looks rather yellowgold in the accompanying pic! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeck! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Africa Cup of Nations

Ali Fazal (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but there should be at least a minimal prose update with regards to the final. Formerip (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major tournament, ITN/R, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No question that this should go to ITN, it is on the list of regular events. I wonder though if the blurb should have info about the nature of the penatly shoot-out or would that make it too long? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and agree that the penalty should be mentioned, see my altblurb. --PanchoS (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN never mentions the score, margin of victory or the equivalent in sports updates, so if posted this shouldn't mention the penalty shoot-out. Bencherlite^Talk 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. The first proposed blurb should be adequate. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose pending prose update to either (or both) of the main article about the 2015 competition and the article specifically about the final; if the article about the final is updated first, then that can be the bold link instead. Bencherlite^Talk 14:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 09:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

---

[Posted] British Academy Film Awards

Nominator's comments: Notable event in film calendar, ITN/R. I've had a go at expanding/updating the prose. JuneGloom07 Talk 21:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending updating the tense of the article (presently in future tense) --MASEM (t) 22:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support whole article is based on this news item and has been updated accordingly. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - important awards show. Looks good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Alexander Vraciu

[Posted] RD: Billy Casper

Nominator's comments: 51 time PGA Tour winner and 2 time US Open winner. Andise1 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - indeed one of the best golfers. RD seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• MildSupport certainly a notable golfer and a remarkably prolific winner. Article is in an okay state, the lead is too short and it is under-referenced but it's vogue to let that slide these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Lead is much improved and article is way into decent RD territory nowadays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - an important figure in the game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose 3 majors only. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Its minor headline in most news sites. No interest for non-golf fans. Article is lousy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "was one of the most prolific tournament winners on the PGA Tour from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s" and "Casper had 51 PGA Tour wins in his career, with his first coming in 1956. This total places him seventh on the all time list." He has also been inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame and has other recognition. Also, very little would be posted to RD if nominations were required to be of interest to people outside a nominated field. What matters for RD is the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Charie Sifford was black. I mean Support: Casper was merely a much better golfer. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to say about the merits of this nomination? If opposing something because we disagree with something else that was posted was a valid oppose, very little would get posted. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking for a point, then Sifford, whose best result was to be tied for 21st in a national competition, should be bumped if we are going to post this otherwise much more worthy candidate. Either that, or an ongoing section for deceased athletes, which might not be a bad idea. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Casper did not have to overcome race prejudice. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once Sifford was on the wider field, did he face further race prejudice that explains his mediocre record compared to Casper? I simply think it would be absurd to have both players at once. Nor do I need personal education on prejudice, racal or other, I have seen it and experienced it physically. I assume my stand is clear, and don't want to further interrupt the nomination discussion itself. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sifford wasn't allowed on the PGA tour until he was nearly 40. Stop comparing apples to oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't want to comment further, but being told to shut up doesn't help. Casper had twice as many PGA championships after 40 as Sifford had and Sifford's best national tournament score was to tie for 21st place while Casper won three times. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild support important golfer, if not one of the most famous. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top of his field. RD notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements Meets D/C as important to his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Good to go, marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Bencherlite^Talk 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] When Will You Marry?

Nominator's comments: A notable story in the art world. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original nominator has withdrawn, nomination "taken over" (if that makes sense) by 331dot. See history for "authorship" of original blurb wording. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Seems a notable event in the art world, getting coverage. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I have provided an altblurb to more accurately reflect how we catalog these (there might be art deals done under the table we have no idea of price). Article has been updated, and based on the sources, the identity of the buyer might not be known for some time. --MASEM (t) 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've scotched my own blurb, and replaced it with yours. There is no need for an alternative, as I agree with your revision. RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support cliche I know, but I was gonna nominate this... Notable art world event. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Significant record (although the "reportedly" aspect is slightly concerning). Suggest blurb also contain USD amount: $300 million. Sca (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you have an issue with pound sterling, a major reserve currency? WP:ENGVAR. Regardless, I've added it in brackets. RGloucester — ☎ 15:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{Obviously, to give U.S. readers, and others globally who may be more accustomed to dollar amounts, a figure they can readily understand. Obviously, one has nothing against also giving the £ price. Sca (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

I think the currency should be whatever one the transaction took place with; that said, the BBC article uses dollars first, with pounds in parentheses. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article also uses dollars first. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to request such a change. Per MOS:RETAIN, the first variety of English is retained. I wrote it in pound sterling, and it will stay in pound sterling. It is perfectly acceptable to do so. Pound sterling is the third greatest reserve currency, and there is no reason why it cannot be used here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to tell me what I do and do not have the "right" to do? I can make any good faith requests that I wish- which isn't even what I was doing here. I was only suggesting a course of action- and then pointed out that the sources offered (British sources mind you) indeed use dollars. It seems to me that what RS are saying is relevant, even if it isn't what we end up doing. No one is trying to diss pound sterling. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read MOS:RETAIN it says that the first used variety of English is the default, not that it is the only one that can ever be used on that page. If there is consensus to change it, it can be changed. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'll add it to current events. Here's our image. Too bad the man died broke. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
• "Vulgar American currency" FTW! –HTD 15:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – At the risk of stating the obvious, may I point out that much of the world relies on what Gloucester terms "vulgar American currency"? (See chart) Sca (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• From now on, every US centric blurb that I feel should be supported should start with "Support vulgar American <event>". –HTD 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The artist was French, you know. --George Ho (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know I wasn't exactly referring to this event. TBH I'd prefer Swiss francs as it seems the sale was done in Switzerland(?). So unless the actual sale was done in another currency, I'd go for CHF. –HTD 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make it truly international, suggest posting all future sale amounts in PBUs (Pizza and Beer Units). Sca (talk)

• Support - but without the conversion. AFAIK, the painting was sold in dollars, so that is all we need to mention in the blurb. We can leave conversion to Euros, Pound Sterling and Intergalactic Credits to the article, Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting with only the "vulgar" American currency, since the BBC headline says "Gauguin painting breaks sale record at nearly $300m". And WP:TROUT RGloucester for his ethnocentrism. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When people get annoyed for some reason, it is very uncool to keep poking at them. The currency/ies used is fairly unimportant, and while discussion on which to use is fine, I guess, let's stop mocking/personalizing this, particularly since they are not participating in the discussion anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much to-do about not much. Sca (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and as to note, the current choice appears to be based on the NYTimes' use of USD, as the deal was one reported by experts in the field but not done though a more formal channel like an auction house where we would likely have used the currency the house used. So use the current "USD (GBP)" approach matches with the reliable source here, and not so much an issue of national-centric normalization we would normally try to do. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester names himself after a tyrant but prefers the role of court jester.

• Support Altblurb as an easy concession to clarity. Marking ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt blurb which seems to have consensus. The dollar wins. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Any chance a handy David Levy could do an image switcheroo when he has a chance? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War in Ukraine or Donbass

Take the dispute to talk. it is not a nomination
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The piping of War in Donbass is misleading. Why should the Main page say "War in Ukraine"? Shouldn't the name be "War in Donbass"? --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Who calls it that? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] It is a WP:NDESC title, though it is used by many RS. Regardless, I'd personally support changing the blurb itself to "Ukrainian crisis". The war is only one subset of the larger crisis, and it doesn't seem to make sense to limit the blurb in this way. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] It sounds like a sneaky way of trying to pretend that the war is not in Ukraine. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Right. That must be why Poroshenko calls it that... Are you familiar with the region, by any chance? Regardless, I still think that the blurb should link to "Ukrainian crisis". The broader crisis is more important than the war alone. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] I concur that "Ukrainian crisis" is much more fitting and recognizable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 7

---

[Posted] RD: Dean Smith

Nominator's comments: Absolutely legendary college basketball coach. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thought about nominating this myself. Meets DC2 for his field; numerous things indicate that. Article seems OK on an initial reading, too.331dot (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Inducted into three major halls of fame and awarded the nation's top civilian honor. The article would probably fail a GAR, but is still in acceptable shape for the main page. Teemu08 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - huge figure in the sport. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking ready. Update is sufficient and there is conensus here. -- Calidum 18:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no brainer. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to have already been posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 Baghdad bombings

Nominator's comments: This tragedy has gotten a fair amount of coverage from major news outlets, including the BBC [47] and the Wall Street Journal [48], in addition to the sources listed above. Everymorning talk 18:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Opppose Presumably this is covered by ongoing; the article itself is inadequate, and might be better of merged into a larger one. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How is this covered by ongoing? I haven't seen any RS that would indicate it was perpetrated by ISIS, if that's what you mean. Everymorningtalk 21:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that ISIS is not yet identified as the suspect group here, but if it is the case, it would clearly fall under Ongoing. (Also, I would probably recommended renaming the article to February 2015 Baghdad bombing, given the way that these events have been named in the past due to their frequency) --MASEM (t) 22:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ongoing should simply be expanded to "Jihadist attacks". We really don't need separate threads for some dozen or two countries, from Australia to France to Chechnya to Nigeria, From Jordan to Japan to the US. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree, because while there are plenty of other Jihadist attacks going throughout the middle east, the one specific group getting heightened coverage is ISIS in part due to the murders of the various international reporters/aid workers as part of their approach. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support article is not adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to Masem's comment above, I have moved the article to the title he suggested. Everymorningtalk 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's about the article quality not title. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't meet the three prose paragraph minimum policy as is, and should still probably sit under ongoing, not be a separate blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

---

[Closed] RD: Alan Nunnelee

Assisted suicide in Canada

– Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose From scanning that article quickly, it seems this has been going on for awhile and it wasn't clear that this vote wasn't really a watershed moment in the topic. Busy Moose (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to note that the article needs copy-editing and improved formatting, especially related to naming/organization of sections. It would also help article quality if a suitable image can be found for the article. Beyond quality concerns, I think that this event is notable enough for ITN, and is an interesting subject. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that the article needs improvement, and I would need help with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon article improvement; I don't think this is that common a national view worldwide and it seems notable. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - after improvements. clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears that it might be a good idea to change the target article to Carter v. Canada, since it seems to be more specifically about this recent development. Everymorningtalk 03:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally agree. The article didn't exist when I nominated this item. I've changed the bolded article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good development, but the problem remains that PAS has not been legalized, merely a law has been found unconstitutional. What we need to wait for is passage of the Nov 2014 Bill, or some other law. This decision has been stayed for an entire year, on expectation of parliamentary action. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the target article should be Carter versus Canada AG, which is the relevant decision. That article is very light on details, and does not argue that assisted suicide has been legalized, it says that one specific law has been overturned. A law setting up regulations and mechanisms would be relevant when passed. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Current target article could use some more expansion. Spencer^T♦C 09:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

---

Habib Essid

Nominator's comments: Tunisia's elections were on focus worldwide, now they finally led to a government. The inclusive approach may be surprising for whoever didn't follow the tedious negotiations. This will be in tonight's evening news worldwide. PanchoS (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The word finally in the blurb seems biased. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No bias intended though. The word "finally" simply refers to the incredible complicated and lengthy negotiation process. It can be left out though if that's preferred. --PanchoS (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd take it out. It reads like WP:EDITORIALIZING, and you're giving the timeframe so we can infer it was a drawn out process. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, I took it out. --PanchoS (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I've added an alt blurb which is more concise.128.214.53.18 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this is notable but it's not great that the only source listed here is AJ and in addition the article says nothing about the proposals of the party, the critical issues they are trying to address following the Tunisian Revolution, the history or sequence of events that led up to the current compromise or a timeline for upcoming elections. In short, this page does still need a lot of help but I think it's an interesting topic in a country that started the Arab Spring and should get more attention paid to it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - when worked on.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Silk Road Trial

Nominator's comments: In my opinion it's of reasonable interest to readers across the world. Stories related to computer technology are reasonably rare here and even if it doesn't make major tabloid news headlines the Silk Road name has become fairly synonymous with the so called dark web. CaptRik (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on significance, however I think the article needs more of an update before posting. I'll see if I can get something together in the next hour or so. GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; I think the article's in good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would be tempted if we knew his sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting why there's such a delay between conviction and sentencing (almost three months). Brandmeister^talk 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brandmeister, I can't comment on the American system, but not at all unusual in the Australian system, especially in circumstances where time is required to prepare psychiatric and other reports from specialists. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The conviction is the "in the news" part. The sentencing will be a footnote somewhere down the road.[49] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unsure, I actually never heard about it. Doesn't seem to be a big thing outside the anglophone world, but if it's important there, then I certainly won't object. --PanchoS (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: 'found guilty on seven counts' of what? It's not even clear from the blurb that this is a criminal prosecution. How about 'drug dealing charges'? Modest Genius ^talk 18:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question and I deliberately left it off the blurb. It's basically 3 counts of drug offenses, 1 of running a continuing criminal enterprise, then it's computer hacking, money laundering and distributing false IDs. Couldn't really see how to work all that into a blurb. I also wondered whether to put his internet pseudoname into the blurb as that's been a key part of the prosecution. To prompt further discussion I've put up an alt blurb that's a little bit expanded. CaptRik (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "drug trafficking and fraud-related charges"? --MASEM (t) 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the wider phenomenon is even a part of popular culture, being fictionalized on The Good Wife for example. Perfect time to feature this on ITN. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it's important to have stories related to the internet and the emerging system of internet law but there doesn't seem to be much about that or the significance of this case on the Silk Road (marketplace) wiki page. This story would have a much clearer notability argument if that kind of information relating to this events significance were displayed.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - definitely for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - An important phenomenon in the field. The trial had a good media coverage and hence deserves ITN - The Herald (here I am) 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked Ready, article well updated and supported, altblurb seems to address concerns above. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the subject who is being sent down doesn't appear to have his own article. This Silk Road item may be of interest to a few but it's certainly not that newsworthy. The blurb is still not realistically accessible for our readers and this seems a trivial moment in the big scheme of the "Dark Web" alleged connections. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 09:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Michelangelo Bronzes

February 4

---

[Closed] Mummified monk may be in rare meditative state

[Posted to Ongoing] Boko Haram

- The Herald (here I am) 15:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- This is a huge operation, certainly notable.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a very large multi-national operation. The biggest attack on Boko Haram in quite a while, so this is definitely a significant event. "Are" instead of "were" would probably be a better wording, though. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think of a stand alone article for the incident. - The Herald (here I am) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How much of a dent does this make in their total operation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – they weren't killed in Chad but in Nigeria. I understand it was Gamboru as per the BBC. Ali Fazal (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Support I also think the operation by the African Union against Boko Haram, in which this success lies, should get an own article. Then the blurb should be changed. For one and most importantly, the soldies were not killed in Chad but in Nigeria (See: [50]). I have entered an alternate blurb above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but as of now the update is "On 4 February Chad army killed over 200 Boko Haram militants." and that ain't enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle – Favor sense of Altblurb, but looks like it might be a trifle longish. Could say, "An African-Union-led operation kills...." Sca (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, that would not really give Chad the credit they deserve. Let's face it: When was the last time YOU heard something about Chad? ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{In November 2000. Sca (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

• Support – definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Boko Haram
Considering the recent raid in Cameroon, possibly with 100+ deaths, I think this warrants for an Ongoing link rather than a blurb. There are too many incidents involving Boko Haram these days and we can't keep posting them all. The article is well updated and I think it is good to go. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I kinda agree with this Boko Haram has been unfortunately rather busy lately. SeraV (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider me a supporter of Ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Posted to ongoing --Jayron32 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] TransAsia Airways Flight 235

Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support without further ado. Brandmeister^talk 08:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've updated the blurb above to reflect the current reported death toll ("at least 19"). Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now "at least 23". Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Major, tragic event. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per previous. Sca (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of the death toll in the prose. If that's fixed, I'll post because the article is in a decent condition for such a recent event and because (despite relatively little support so far), precedent suggests that multi-fatality plane crashes are almost always posted. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - toll now at least 25. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. --Tone 15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Nice job getting this one out so soon. I agree with HJ Mitchell that large commercial plane crashes like this should just about always be posted per precedent, intrigue, and international significance. Mamyles (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 3

---

RD: Mary Healy

Nominator's comments: American actress, singer, and variety entertainer - The Herald (here I am) 14:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not seeing how she meets the RD criteria. Only seems notable for performing with her husband. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just another actress, weak article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - One could just as easily argue that her husband was only notable for working with her. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[posted] RD: Charlie Sifford

Nominator's comments: Sifford was, according to the Washington Post, "the first black man to join the PGA tour", and according to Lee Trevino, "you have to put him [Sifford] in the Jackie Robinson category". (This last quote can be found in the NY Times obituary.) Everymorning talk 18:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The recognition he has gotten (Hall of Fame, Medal of Freedom, etc) would seem to indicate he is important to golf. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and 331dot. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose according to the "major wins" section of his article, the best he ever did was tie for 21st place in the US Open. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - breakthrough player who paved the way for others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paved the way? Did he win various lawsuits? Lead protest marches? Good for him for what he accomplished, but being born black in a certain time is not an accomplishment, and honoring a middling player is a rather grotesque and patronising sort of self-gratification for the people conveying honors. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods said if it weren't for Sifford, he wouldn't be a pro golfer today. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 10:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can disagree with the reason that he got the honors he did, but that doesn't change the fact that he got them and is considered important by people like Woods. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not top of his field by any means, article is poor too. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is "very important" to the field, not "top of" the field. He doesn't have to be the greatest golfer to be important. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support They don't give out the Presidential Medal of Freedom (America's highest civilian honor) to just anybody. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps we should have an ITNR specifically for RD if just being awarded the PMoF is sufficient to be posted to RD? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea to me. Everymorningtalk 12:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably is. That way we could avoid this opposition for someone who broke the golf color barrier, who won the PMoF, was inducted in the World Golf Hall of Fame, and inspired Tiger Woods, all of which clearly indicates his importance in the field. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, sticking to the point, it would useful if you started a discussion on this at WT:ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the nomination and comments from Baseball Bugs. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Muboshgu. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious that we are nominating Sifford because he was the first black to compete in various competitions, not because he did best in them. Is there anyone who denies he is being praised as the first Black who happened to be X, rather that the first who happened to be a black X? If so, he has no notability in his field of "ethnicity". This obsession with affirmative action is an American one, and one that should have ended forever when Oprah, Cosby, and Michael Jackson were the richest paid people in America, if not in 2008. Just as we have stopped accepting every first gay X nominations on that basis alone, we need to stop patronising first black X nominations as well. In the meantime we've had black nobel prize winners, black mayors, governors and kings, black writers, actors and scientists. It is truly an embarrassing and patronising corruption if we think we need to nominate first black...middling golf player who never won a minor tournament. Shame! μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fairly recent trend of the far right to belittle accomplishments by non-white people in the old days, long before there were any Oprahs on the scene. That trend is the actual "patronizing" - a segment of the white population trying to pretend that everything was always hunky-dory for non-whites except maybe for a few inconveniences, and that there's no maltreatment of minorities today. The fact that Sifford broke the color line in the PGA was a significant achievement, whether he became a tournament champion or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, it sounds like you're trying to say racism is over. It is not. It is also important to recognize the pioneers who have helped to level the playing field, though it isn't fully level yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from Admin: Based on weight of arguments, consensus seems that this is significant enough to post to RD. The problem is the article quality is not in any shape to post. The article would need to be expanded (a lot of the stuff people posted above as to WHY he's so significant is not in the article for example) and the quality of referencing would need to be stepped up. I'd be ready to post this if someone who wants it posted would get the article up to snuff. Thanks. --Jayron32 15:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jayron32: Mind checking my work to see if I've expanded it sufficiently? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --Jayron32 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] US Military Suicide prevention act

[Closed] Valhalla train crash

[Closed] Britain allows three-parent babies

[Closed] Harper Lee to publish Mockingbird "sequel"

February 2

---

[Closed] RD: Dave Bergman

[Closed] Plaka Bridge

Withdrawn to nominate it for WP:DYK per User:Spencer. --PanchoS (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:SNOW --PanchoS (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Article:Plaka Bridge (talk · history · tag) Blurb:Ottoman Plaka Bridge in northwestern Greece collapsed amidst a flash flood. (Post) News source(s):Kathimerini, Hürriyet, Al Jazeera Credits: Nominated by PanchoS (talk · give credit) Updated by Odythal (talk · give credit) and Gre regiment (talk · give credit) Article updated Nominator's comments: News event highlighting interesting aspects of Greece's history. Also a new article that might hopefully lead to another good article being written on the Treaty of Plaka [el]. PanchoS (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose If this was some bridge built from a millennia ago and thus losing a historic monument, would be possible. But this is only about 150 years old, and there are plans to rebuild with the original materials once the flooding subsides, so do not seem like a major archaeological or architectural disaster. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Masem but this is a newly created article and could potentially be eligible for DYK. SpencerT♦C 02:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Masem. If it was the Manhattan Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Tower Bridge, or another famous bridge, then of course, but I've never heard of this, and it looks that not too many others have either. --AmaryllisGardener talk 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 1

---

RD: Udo Lattek

Nominator's comments: German football player and one of the most successful coaches in the history of the game, and the most successful coach with German teams. - The Herald (here I am) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Judging by his record and the number of times he coached teams to the championships - he was definitely one of the best in his field. Challenger l (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, well known in his field. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to ready, as I think it is before archiving.

• Strong oppose not ready by any means. The article uses just two references for the entire career section which itself is littered with non-neutral text. Just being "well known in his field" does not equate to being suitable for RD, however he was a notable coach. Revise the article, remove the non-neutral tone, reference the claims and you have my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Monty Oum

Nominator's comments: Popular animator, screenwriter, director and voice actor; worked at popular production company Rooster Teeth, where he created RWBY and largely worked on Red vs. Blue; also created Haloid and Dead Fantasy, which received notability a few years ago. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. I think his career(couple awards for his work, some highly-viewed works he made) combined with the unexpected nature of his death merits posting, but that said I'm not entirely sure his career on its own would merit posting; if it isn't posted for that reason, I understand. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can't see that he qualifies as a very important figure in his field. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How notable he is depends on how notable the two awards he won are, I'd say. The circumstances and suddenness of his illness and death should also be taken into consideration, but I remain ambivalent about him qualifying for RD. Challenger l (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I could support this if it weren't for the fact his fashion sense and death by routine surgery seem to be his claim to fame. Can someone born before 1970 explain in simple terms a rationale for his truly unique place in mashup? μηδείς (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously not born before 1970, but his "fashion sense and death" are definitely not the reason for his fame. Oum was a highly influential animator who created and worked on some very successful shows. Despite his main role as an animator and director, his face is well known among the online community, and has been for many years. His passing was definitely not his "claim to fame"; it just let more people know of his work. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Landslide Dam

Nominator's comments: Breach of dam can cause flashfloods and can be disastrous to the people living at down the river. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Do you have any mainstream news stories about this? I'm skeptical of posting something that 'might' be a problem unless it is widely covered by news outlets. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment By the looks of things, a breach in this dam could potentially cause a lot of destruction. If it did, there would certainly be a case for a front page posting of such an event - however, this is hypothetical. I sincerely hope you never have to come back and nominate such an event for ITN, mind you. --Adam in 成都市 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some news sources. Outdoor Journal, DNA, Tribune India, Daily Excelsior. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support - I am supporting posting this.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @BabbaQ: Why? As stated on this page, "please do not add simple support or oppose !votes". 331dot (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not realistically in the news, some minor sites have it up, meh. The article is really weak, the update about this "dam" is poor, I don't see how this makes it as ITN-worthy by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to support but there isn't enough content yet. Compare with Attabad Lake which is a similar landslide lake in Pakistan that rather unexpectedly didn't suffer a catastrophic breach. Luckily the authorities in this case seem to be more on the ball and I suppose they have some time until the peak snow melting season to try to stop a massive lake building up before the breach happens. Anyway it is likely to only become bigger news with time unless it is resolved, so getting more sources in the future shouldn't be a problem. JMiall₰ 21:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because the potential story here hasn't happened and "something might happen" isn't what ITN is for. Bencherlite^Talk 11:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article. You may visit it again and share your views. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, my view remains the same, in fact. Bencherlite^Talk 15:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A cocktail-napkin estimate shows the amount of dammed water could be an order of magnitude greater than that released in the Johnstown Flood. A DYK article for the lake itself might be well worth considering. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Ann Mara

2015 World Men's Handball Championship

Nominator's comments: The result of the previous final has been announced on the main page. Now we also have a record-breaking fifth win for France. - Thierry Caro (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Light Support World championships are notable, but Handball is a minor sport in terms of popularity. I've seen some other sports with comparable popularity or greater popularity not posted. Busy Moose (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Busy Moose: This is on the ITNR list, so this is presumed notable enough for posting, but as pointed out, the article must get an adequate update. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely presumed notable by the nominator. Generally nominators don't put up things if they don't think it wouldn't have a chance to be accepted, but in theory they could nominate things they see as worthy that the community would think is inappropriate. You raise a good point with the update, however. But even with the update, I still think I would only give nominal support. Busy Moose (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we don't even have a prose review of the final itself, unless I missed it in the bunches of tables in the nominated article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the updates seem to consist of edit warring about paid "fans", non-native "national" players and unfair scoring. Per ITN policy, an update needs to provide more than the claim made in the blurb, and the rest of the updating seems unsettled scandal mongering. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until an adequate update is made. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Was a major talking point in the participating nations, but with all the controversy surrounding the event, I doubt the article can get up to scratch in time...Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The controversies sound more notable than the event itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2015 Australian Open

Nominator's comments: Important ongoing event, but not yet complete. Men's singles' results are awaited. - The Herald (here I am) 14:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That should be specifically linked to 2015 Australian Open – Women's Singles and, soon, to 2015 Australian Open – Men's Singles. There could be a better summarizing lead in the Women's Singles article. Brandmeister^talk 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt-blurb in the 2014 format added. Bencherlite^Talk 16:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support going ahead with the blurb now for Serena and adding the men's result later. Why wait?--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnsemlak. I support it.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. None of the three articles has even a paragraph on the winners and/or finals. There are just big data tables, and a statement of the winner in the lead/infobox. This needs some referenced prose before it can go up. Modest Genius ^talk 18:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the main article seems obsessed with a Bouchard twirl, not with commentary on the final matches, one of which was quite an epic. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, It has been sufficiently updated now with references to boot. However, the final matches were not "epic" because if you want to see "epic" look no further than the 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles final. This was truly "epic" in nature, not this years' Djokovic versus Murray.FiringAces (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The update is fine now. Posting. --Tone 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Richard von Weizsäcker

[Posted] Super Bowl XLIX

Nominator's comments: Since this will probably get contentious, it is better to start the discussion early. Patriots or Seahawks. Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly will be contentious? This is ITNR so the merits don't even need to be discussed. 331dot (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a prelim note, sections on the playoffs are unreferenced, and should be fixed before posting which can be done now before the game.also go hawks --MASEM (t) 03:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Spencer^T♦C 06:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this would be contentious. News about the winner definitely needs to be in. Busy Moose (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is nominated early is contentious. It is notable (per ITNR) such that only a good update is required for it to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it gets posted immediately by some trigger-happy admin who doesn't wait for there to be a proper update. It should obviously go up as soon as the article is ready, but not before. Modest Genius ^talk 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The Patriots won, lets put it up now as it is newsworthy for sure. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game summary should be added before posting. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been added. Why is this not posted yet?
      • Because the Patiots are cheaters (Just kidding). To be honest, I don't know. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 08:22, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • One imagines it relates to the large orange maintenance tag requesting references for the match report? And perhaps the empty "Final statistics (TBA)" section? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - obviously - presuming the article is good enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It is ready to post now.FiringAces (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• support marking ready --Johnsemlak (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 11:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]