Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2016

---

[Posted] RD: Harry Kroto

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes, an allotrope of carbon.

• Support - came here to post this. No flags in the article. shoy (reactions) 12:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – notable chemist, nobel prize winner. Baking Soda (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If he died on 30th April why isn't any main stream newspaper reporting it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that someone fooled the Royal Society of Chemistry? You'd have to ask the media why they aren't reporting this- it may be an indication of his importance(or lack thereof). 331dot (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The news first broke yesterday as far as I can tell [1]. shoy (reactions) 17:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's been a public holiday in the UK, hence delay in reporting. The Guardian has it now. Sapient (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Telegraph now too. Sapient (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose on quality; while a few missing citations are usually not a huge concern, most of the "awards" and "honorary degrees" sections are uncited. There's too much there that needs reliable cites right now. If that were to be fixed, this could be easily posted. --Jayron32 13:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I share the concern of Dharmadhyaksha that this isn't being reported on; if it was shown to be reported on, I would support posting once the quality issues raised by Jayron area addressed. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tallahassee Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if quality improved Meets RD criteria for importance in his field. Article needs some work though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The death is now in the mainstream news. I've gone through and tidied up some of the citations; there's no more red text for now. Sufficient? Sapient (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I reviewed the changes from nom time to now and the articles seems sufficiently improved and sufficiently sourced for posting. Importance as Nobel-winning chemist is clear. (The fact he won the Nobel is the point of importance, not that his death being reported in mainstream, though that factor's been remedied with coverage in the Guardian and Popular Science). --MASEM (t) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Per Masem's assessment. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Daniel Berrigan

Nominator's comments: He was a notable pacifist who won the War Resisters League Peace Award, among several others. EternalNomad (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on importance. A pivotal figure for his era. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no evidence that his writing letters against the Vietnam War was of any especial influence. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after improvements – Notability seems to be there, but not until the article is better sourced. At any rate, according to the NY Times, Berrigan has been a pivotal figure in social & political protest, and one of the US's leading peace activists, for half a century. Furthermore, his militancy included a spiritual & moral dimension (as both a priest and as a poet/essayist) that was unique. The NY Times says he "shaped the tactics of opposition" to the Vietnam War which, at the time, put him on the FBI's "most-wanted list," and landed him on the cover of Time magazine. And as an intellectual figure he received many awards for his writings over a lifetime, including one of the most prestigious awards that "The Academy of American Poets" can give; published 50+ books during his lifetime. Also was a university instructor for many decades, and poet-in-residence at Fordham University; honored w/ the Pacem in Terris Award...the list could go on. Christian Roess (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality - uncited claims, some copyediting to do e.g. capitalisation of university degrees, and overall the article doesn't demonstrate notability. The claims which Chrsitan Roess makes above are not included in the article, for example. MurielMary (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- Valid points, so I altered the lead to include some more of these "claims" (not my claims, but what The New York Times is claiming). I'm also tracking down other secondary sources to cite, some of which I've already included in the article. Christian Roess (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – A famous figure in the U.S. Antiwar Movement of the '60s, and a headline name. Sca (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild oppose clearly notable yet the article, as of right now, has ten [citation needed] tags and is a little hagiographical, including the mindbogglingly lengthy list of some of his works. Can the tags be sorted and the biblio be trimmed? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - yes those things need to be cleared up before it can be posted. I'm working on it. Will check in again tomorrow w/ an update to my progress. Or maybe another editor will get to it, and we can reevaluate for inclusion on the main page ITN/RD section. Christian Roess (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - cleared up many of the issues that TRM and MurielMary pointed to. The bibliography has been excised down to a real 'selected', while the other publications were moved to a newly created bibliography page for Berrigan. Also, still CN tags in the Awards section. But I can't finish editing until tomorrow. But please look over the article because there may be other issues, too. And that probably means this article is not ready to post yet. Christian Roess (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready - In my opinion, the quality of the article is now sufficient (barely--or minimally--sufficient, I might add). And I believe it's ready to be posted to RD. But I think the vote, currently, is deadlocked: tied 3 to 3 (Support= 3 — Oppose = 3). Tiebreaker anyone? Is it ready, or does it need improvement? Can we get a consensus? Christian Roess (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted after another good cleanup. Stephen 02:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support sorry I missed voting on this one but thank you to those who worked on it and got it posted. He was indeed a pivotal figure in the anti-Vietnam movement and a household name. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Iraq bombings and aftermath

[Posted] Ivory burning

Nominator's comments: Biggest manifestation so far with wide coverage of a worthy cause to combat illegal ivory trade and poaching of elephants and rhinos. w.carter-Talk 15:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• support - rare event. mentioned in world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment without prejudice the aticle is not updated beyond 2 sentences, and I don't know how that article can be enough for the topic and include this one=-off incident.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with both BabbaQ that this is a notable event that is getting news coverage, but also with Lihaas that the article barely mentions it. If the article was GA or higher then I'd certainly support it, but as it stands I really can't decide. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Update now expanded plus numbers in the rest of the text updated. (my Internet connection had collapsed, now fixed along with the article) w.carter-Talk 19:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I think the article and the news story are of sufficient interest globally to warrant this being posted. Having said that, the update is relatively small, but once you've covered main points (biggest ivory destruction in history, tonnage, number of animals) there's no much more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose what ITN criterion does this meet? μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no formal ITN criteria, only a statement of purpose that ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.".
    1. This is unquestionably a recent event.
    2. That it is of wide interest can be seen by the extent of news coverage.
    3. That it is an encyclopaedic topic can be seen by our article on ivory destruction, and the biggest ever event is certainly worthy of inclusion in that article.
    4. That it has been substantially updated is less clear, but I'm convinced by The Rambling Man's comments that what we have is sufficient. 'Support. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria for size of updated content says "... a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient". The 'main' article is now updated with 15 20 sentences and 6 8 refs. The second article is not updated, but does every 'help' article linked to in a blurb have to be updated? Like Bergen in the nom below? Plus adding alt blurb to emphasize the burning and not just large pile. w.carter-Talk 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the main linked article is required to be updated, although other linked articles being updated is obviously a good thing for Wikipedia in general as well as ITN specifically. As long as those other linked articles are not contradicting the main article and not nominated for deletion or flagged as BLP vios they're essentially irrelevant to the nomination process (and even then it would almost always just be a case of tweaking the blurb to avoid linking to them). Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty obvious that this meets the criteria for ITN, if anyone needs help in understanding how to find those criteria, please see WP:ITN where the information is clearly explained. I think Thryduulf summarised it nicely, so hopefully that clears up any "confusion". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not ask what the ITN criteria are, I asked how this meets them. Record contraband seizures are announced all the time. This is rather below the fold. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not one contraband seizure, this is a government making an unprecedented manifestation attended by two African presidents and several wildlife conservation organisations. The burning contains years of seized contraband, in fact the amount almost equals the total amount of destroyed ivory in the whole world ever before this event, and the event is covered by virtually every major news agency in the world (just Google it). I'd say that makes it an ITN candidate. Even without the ITN, the article is receiving a rapid increase in views, so the readers are curious to learn more. w.carter-Talk 20:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Medeis: I've explained above how this meets all the criteria for ITN: It's a recent event of wide interest related to an encyclopaedic topic with a sufficiently updated Wikipedia article. If you think this is just another contraband seizure then you need to reread the article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's more confusion here. This is in no way related to heroin seizures (P.S. thanks for the fascinating link to the "biggest heroin seizure in Salem County" (where?) when this is the biggest destruction of ivory in the history of planet Earth. I guess that's indicative of the systemic bias we all suffer from around here). This is the destruction of ivory which has been previously reclaimed from criminals. It's in the news, it's of interest to our readers, it's had a quality update, if the application of the ITN criteria to this article need further explanation, please feel free to ask. Otherwise I would suggest this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is manufactured news – a staged PR event. But, on the other hand, it's the biggest such event and has duly attracted lots of coverage – much more than other items currently in ITN. So, it should get the benefit of the doubt. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a noble but misguided attempt at fixing a problem. I would prefer wikipedia not to endorse such an economically-idiotic attempt that will only lead to skyrocketing prices of ivory on the black market. Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That standpoint is also covered in the article. I would prefer the Wikipedia to remain neutral and just write the facts about what is going on in the world. w.carter-Talk 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the opposition is absurd and purely a personal POV which has no bearing in reality to ITN's raison d'etre. As already explained, it's in the news, it's of interest to our readers, it's updated, there's no complaints here. Unless of course we want to stagnate ITN with days-old news and ignore things that are actually making notable global news. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this does fit the ITN criteria, and the article has been updated sufficiently. Reading through all these remarks, it seems to me that those in "support" ultimately made their case, although some of the opposition's points were valid and credible. But those in support were more convincing, answering nearly every valid charge against. Christian Roess (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull there's a net support of one out of a vote of 3 to 2 in favor of this posting. It's absurd. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, 331., counting is possible, now that WP:NOTAVOTE is no longer a guideline but a downgraded essay. George Ho (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done, or that it is a substitute for consensus. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, if we were to actually "count", the vote stood at 5 to 2 at the time of posting. It's not absurd!! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support Article is of sufficient quality, update is well-referenced and extensive enough. --Jayron32 02:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• post-posting support It is sufficiently in the news to qualify[2][3][4][5] and a notable enough topic[6]. Would prefer some more info in the article, but there is enough. Also one of the opposes is very political in nature. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support. Well, if we're vote counting and 3-2 in favor wasn't enough for some to agree to the posting, please count this as another on the support side. Now I think we're at 6-2. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose WP:NOTADVERTISING, we should not be advertising this PR move by the Kenyan government. SSTflyer 04:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] 2016 Turøy helicopter crash

 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Low-profile accident in the grand scheme of aviation history. Previous similar accidents (2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash or 2016 Sunbird Aviation crash) weren't posted either. Brandmeister^talk 20:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - large helicopter crashes with loss of all on board. @Brandmeister, you are comparing apples with oranges there. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the "Crew and passengers" section is entirely unreferenced (I've added a tag) and there are some other untagged claims needing citations too. I'm undecided on the notability at present. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I've referenced that section. The only outstanding item needing referencing is the registration of the aircraft involved. What is stated matches information available in forums etc, but these fail WP:RS (see article talk). Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Registration now referenced. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The grounding of all of the same time helicopter in Norway and the UK makes this significant enough for me. I agree the article quality is now good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article looks fine enough Sherenk1 (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt blurb added, reflecting grounding in Norway and UK. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You might still want to include that it was a fatal crash with 13 deaths in that alt otherwise it somewhat "lightens" the impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a second altblurb, which includes that but I think is a little too long for perfection. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  ALT1 tweaked. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - important enough, article is good.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 12:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 • Interesting to note that, although all three suggested blurbs above include the word helicopter, the posted blurb does not. Sca (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Equatorial Guinean presidential election

Nominator's comments: Africa's longest serving leader remains in power. Results came out yesterday. Reaction from the African Union should come out soon. As a side note, you may recognise the background in the image from more recent African leader pics - all taken during the 2014 United States–Africa Leaders Summit). Fuebaey (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is not going to appear on the front pages of any newspapers with a remotely global circulation, anywhere. I would be surprised even it even made it to the front page in Nigeria. It only makes it to the top of ITN on Wikipedia due to some arbitrary notion that state sovereignty itself confers notability to all of its political elections. Colipon+(Talk) 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Numerous attempts at somehow limiting which countries' elections are posted have been made and failed many times, largely because any limit would be arbitrary and systemic bias would be worse. Learning about other countries' elections is a good thing for Wikipedia's readers. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Notability is pre-established by ITN/R. Article quality is good enough to post, but could use more sourcing for the results if someone has the time. Mamyles (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time until the article looks a bit better; for instance, it could use additional sources, a reaction from the A.U., and why is the opposing candidate neither pictured nor has an article?--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing there is no picture of the opposition candidate because they only got about 4500 votes as that candidate's party had no seats in parliament. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This was not a genuine election as the ruler is "one of the continent's most brutal dictators". Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even your source states that this election is "official", which meets my definition of genuine. Governments in this area are all at least somewhat corrupt. Are we never to post any elections in Africa, then? Mamyles (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It is not our job to determine what is a "genuine" election. The article can(and should) contain all information about how the election is viewed. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's our policy that: "Wikipedia is not a ... vehicle for propaganda". We should not present such staged PR events as if they were equivalent to what happens in proper Western democracies. It would be like presenting cosmetic advertising as science just because they have a guy in a white coat with some techo-babble about liposomes. Andrew D. (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not, the article makes that clear. Now, if you believe what you say, that "ITN is dead", please stop these pointy opposes, please work on either improving the system by suggesting on the talk page improvements to, for example, ITNR, or please do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What we're discussing here is whether to have a blurb in ITN on the main page or not. The state of the linked articles is a secondary consideration because many readers won't look past the blurb. In any case, the bold linked article does not make the dubious nature of the election clear. The lead simply presents the result as a fact and doesn't even mention that the election was boycotted by the opposition parties. Again, many readers who get that far won't look past the lead. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No-one is arguing whether your vote stands or not. You yourself have declared that ITN is dead (and you prefer the more tabloid WP:TOP25 as an indicator of what our readers need from an encyclopedia) yet you do nothing practical in any sense whatsoever to fix the root causes besides making pointed votes. We all acknowledge your position, WP:DEADHORSE applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What TRM seems to be referring to is this comment. My observation was that it's the WMF that's moving away from ITN. Today, their app is highlighting the following 5 articles as the top read:

1. Hertha Marks Ayrton
2. Muzdalifah
3. Prince (musician)
4. Captain America: Civil War
5. Hillsborough disaster

But we digress... Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to propose a blurb mentioning a boycott; we have done that before I believe. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: the point of ITN is not to highlight the most read articles, but to highlight articles about subjects that are currently in the news. While there may be some overlap they are different things, with different purposes and different methodologies. If you want to replace ITN's slot on the main page with a list of the most read articles, feel free to propose that. Until such time as that proposal gets consensus though, then ITN functions as a place to highlight articles that are in the news, regardless of how many people read those articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF has already taken that decision for their new iPhone app. Presumably that's because they understand that readership numbers actually matter. There are many media outlets going out of business because they are failing to keep up with such trends – libraries, newspapers, Friends United, &c. ITN should be highlighting topics with a readership of 100,000+ If ITN is full of trivia instead then readers won't bother with it. For example, Hertha Marks Ayrton was top topic above because it was featured as a Google Doodle. It got a readership of about 1.1 million as a result. ITN only drives about 10K readers to a topic – about 1% of the Google effect. The WMF understand that they need to keep up or they (and us) will become increasingly irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to help Wikipedia, and to make up statistics as you go along without any basis in fact. In the meantime, please see WP:DEADHORSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is in good shape and the event is in the news. That's all that matters for something on ITN/R. If you don't believe that something should be on ITNR then propose it be removed in the proper place: WT:ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -presidential election. notable.BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ITNR and quality is of sufficient standard now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 12:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Closed] RD: Conrad Burns

[Posted] RD: Renato Corona

Nominator's comments: Top Filipino law official. Was the Chief Justice of the highest court of the land and in 2011 was impeached and left office in 2012 after being found guilty. Death was sudden and article in good enough shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Article quality seems fine, and notability is there but I'm unsure how much news coverage this is actually getting as I've only found one source in addition to the nom's [7]. That article is only about an hour old though so maybe I'm just too quick? Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'. An impeached and removed Chief Justice would be very important to their field. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not making the news outside the Philippines. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It doesn't have to. As stated above, "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm doing is evaluating the level of news coverage, which is poor. The cited news source of gmanetwork.com doesn't seem to be a serious news organisation. Where is the BBC coverage of the death, for example? They covered the impeachment so they are aware that the guy exists, but since he was found to be corrupt and disgraced, his death doesn't make the cut. Andrew D. (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Who cares how much the guy's death is covered? If this guy was a prominent national court justice, and the article is in good shape, let's go for it then. George Ho (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"How much the death is covered" is actually a valid measure of notability. Previous discussions here have opposed the posting of deaths of people whose passing was not mentioned in mainstream media, despite their being prominent figures and having an article in good shape. If media coverage of a death is no longer a criteria, this will introduce some very interesting nominations. MurielMary (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment could we fix the bare URLs please. Even DYK manage to do that before most of the articles hit the main page. After that it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs gone... Not gone but reformatted. Also, I moved sources and then added others. George Ho (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per George ho.BabbaQ (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] S/2015 (136472) 1

[Closed] Ongoing: 2015–16 protests in Brazil

[Closed] Ongoing: 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal

[Closed] Indian GPS

---

[Closed] RD: Liu Lianman

[Closed] Dennis Hastert sentenced to 15 months in prison

---

[Posted] RD: Harry Wu

Nominator's comments: Chinese human rights advocate, founded the Laogai Research Foundation – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant contribution to their country's history and culture - exposed a lot of the laogai. Challenger l (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to be an influential human rights activist in China and death is covered worldwide furthermore the article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If everyone says he is a prominent activist, let's give him an honorable mention right away. He didn't open a dedicated foundation for nothing. George Ho (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose on article quality - there are some unreferenced sections still, such as the whole first paragraph of the section "Focus on Laogai" MurielMary (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a source to that particular paragraph. I don't see any remaining wholly unsourced paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article seems to be just fine. One of the most important 20th century figures in Chinese human rights advocacy, probably accomplished much more than Liu Xiaobo. Colipon+(Talk) 14:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] National Museum of Natural History, New Delhi

 Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the merits, seems to be a notable cultural loss. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this does seem to be a an important loss of cultural artifacts. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, though the article is disappointingly bare bones. Seems to be a significant loss and a potential scandal, given the earlier reports of poor maintenance. Modest Genius ^talk 13:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Huge, significant news worldwide, especially for citizens and tourists. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per User:331dot & User:Masem's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Definitely a major loss both to India's history and a loss to the world's history here. Challenger l (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Amanullah Khan

[Posted] Hillsborough disaster

Nominator's comments: A landmark in this long-running case. There'll probably be more controversy whatever the verdict. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - By all means this should be posted. This is a legal case of earth-shattering proportions within the U.K. and goes beyond the scope of a mere sports disaster. The article is quite an interesting read.--WaltCip (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Walt puts it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport - a comprehensive and well-written article and a subject which is going to make the headlines tomorrow. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update, wait until its made public. Brandmeister^talk 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update and improvements I found several unsourced quotes in the Controversies section, specifically under "The Sun" part. These must be fixed before posting, but the rest of the article looks fine. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues with the sourcing appeared to have been fixed, so once update is confirmed, should be good. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I confirmed the update some time ago when I marked it as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative oppose - I don't see how this is "a legal case of earth-shattering proportions within the U.K.". Neither the linked source nor the article explains the case's legal significance; it only appears to be the latest (final?) twist in a well-known event. Further the disaster itself is something that happened more than 25 years, i.e. a very long time, ago. Undoubtedly some of the involved people will have died in this intervening period, and much forgotten into the mists of time. A brief search for "Hillsborough disaster" on Google actually turns up items dated two weeks ago, commemorating the anniversary of the event, as opposed to this case itself. I'm also barely seeing coverage in non-UK outlets as well. Willing to change my opinion if someone can explain why this will have lasting significance, but otherwise I don't see this as worth posting. Banedon (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Banedon: for a start, it's the longest inquest in British legal history (BBC TV this morning). If there was an article on the inquest, then I would have nominated that article, failing that, the article on the disaster is the appropriate one to nominate. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't find that a very impressive thing; something is always going to be the longest inquest in British legal history after all (and every other country in the world has a corresponding "longest inquest"). It's like, if I started selling burgers at the top of the Burj Khalifa, I could legitimately advertise my burgers as the "highest burgers in the world" ... except who cares? It's not something to really be proud of. If being the longest inquest is the only distinguishing factor about this case, I think it's not ITN-worthy, and at best DYK. Banedon (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @Banedon: I would not expect to see international coverage of this before the verdict is released (which is still an hour away), but anyway international coverage is not relevant to ITN. The Hillsborough Disaster is a major cultural issue in the UK and certainly those who were involved in any way (directly or indirectly, even as fans) have never forgotten it - in the UK support for a football team is passed down through families* along with the associated traditions of the club making for very strong institutional memories. Over 25 years after the event, sales of The Sun in Liverpool are still significantly below other parts of the country. (*I can't immediately find it, but there is a map somewhere of supporters of London football clubs that shows a pocket of support for Arsenal in the Woolwich area of south east London, despite the team moving to north London over 100 years ago in 1913). Even to someone like me, who is not a football supporter and was only 8 at the time it happened, the Hillsborough Disaster is a big thing, and news about it on this scale will be massively featured by the media. Support. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage from CNN, ABC (Australia) and CBC (Canada) added. There is also a large amount of non-English European coverage. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated with the verdict today especially given the unlawful killing verdict. I was going to write more in support of this but Thryduulf did it it for me above. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlawful killing verdict, blurb updated. Bencherlite^Talk 10:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, reasons have been provided above Sherenk1 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support actual interesting news of large importance to a notable English-speaking part of the world, and an unusual subject for ITN. Nergaal (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Tweaked the blurb to link to Hillsborough disaster#Second hearing which contains the updated information. This is a huge article and readers could easily miss it if not linked to directly. --Jayron32 15:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would have supported this because I myself find the subject matter interesting, but I am not sure I buy the arguments in favour here. It unfortunately gives the perception, prima facie, that Wikipedia to some degree still suffers from systemic bias, as an event of similar scale in other countries (let's say, a second investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan) might never get any coverage. Colipon+(Talk) 00:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing here that suggests that other investigations wouldn't be posted. Nothing at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not my argument. My argument was about the perception it gives to readers, and also that other stories in non-English speaking countries would (likely) never even be written about, let alone posted on ITN. In any case, it's very obvious that this case seems like a "huge deal" in the UK but really nowhere else; again this is not a reason to not post it, it's just an interesting observation. For instance this did not make it onto the headlines of the New York Times (one would have to try to locate the story or "search" for it), something of a reliable "test" for notability. Whereas Obergefell v Hodges was certainly the top story on The Guardian the day the ruling came down. Colipon+(Talk) 12:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I guess you're aware that we have numerous foreign-language Wikipedias who are almost certainly better placed to cover specific cases should that problem arise. The story is global, just because the NYT didn't carry it, that's hardly a suggestion that it's a big deal "really nowhere else". Anyway, we have the ITN rules to cover that mis-complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose post-posting. Probably futile, but here goes anyway: The bulk of the impact and encyclopedic content of the this nomination relies on events from over 27 years ago. The events that have transpired recently, that gave rise to this nomination, are less so. It's not clear what an "unlawful death" ruling means in this case (something for insurance?). If new charges were brought in this case, that would be more impactful than what this nomination is about, which amounts to "we kind of reserve the right to maybe charge someone." The bringing of a second inquiry seems, based on my reading of the article, to have been arbitrary and on the whim of Attorney General. As such, what closes the possibility of having a third inquiry, and the potential nullification of this one? There's a tradition of only posting top-level judicial actions here at ITN, and it's not clear that this event is either the top level or even the last action in this case. I appreciate that the event is a cultural issue, but the nomination is not for the disaster itself, but for (what appears to me) a minor ripple in its wake.128.214.163.204 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  No, hardly a minor ripple. It's been headline news in the UK for a couple of days now. The ruling now means that criminal action can be sought against those who were respsonsible for the unlawful killings. For 27 years, the families of 96 people have been told that it was down to the bad behaviour of drunken fans that the disaster took place. Yesterday that was completely and utterly rejected in law. This is arguably one of the most newsworthy UK legal decisions for decades, far more so than the issuing of Lucan's death certificate which we posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support. I too have got fed up of seeing this in the (UK) news almost continuously for the last ~5 years, but it's undoubtedly of major public interest. The event itself was important, albeit a long time ago, and the subsequent cover-up hugely undermined public trust in the police, which continues to be of relevance today. This verdict is a milestone in the affair and will surely lead to prosecutions. It's the best time to post the story we're going to get, so posting was a good move. Now I hope the media will let me stop hearing about it... Modest Genius ^talk 12:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

[Posted to RD] Tommy Kono

Nominator's comments: He was one of the greatest weightlifters ever; he won 2 gold medals, was world champion for 6 years, and set 26 world records. EternalNomad (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Importance to weightlifting is significant enough. The article is missing some references. I've added one, but all of the "Early Life" and some of the "Career" sections are still unreferenced. Mamyles (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Importance is high. BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support although not prevelant in the news outlets I read, this individual is clearly notable with the number of medals and records. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose plenty of people win two gold metals at the olympics. There is no evidence he had any influence in the field. Had the article said he had developed new techniques I could support this. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there are few who set multiple world records, which is one of the highest achievements. And according to the article, he's "the only Olympic weightlifter in history to have set world records in four different weight classes" (although the associated reference link is dead). Brandmeister^talk 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are his records unbroken? I suggest you read Stephen J. Gould's essay on why there are no more .400 hitters in baseball. Or watch him here on the subject. Pioneers in a field tend to set all sorts of "records" that result from the statistical fact that they are first, not best. If any of his records stand, I'll change my vote. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem very fair to me. Records improve all the time, so this would imply that Usain Bolt is the only 100m sprinter worth featuring after death. 100m sprints don't have many new techniques also. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Clearly very important to weightlifting for being "the only Olympic weightlifter in history to have set world records in four different weight classes". 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Stephen 06:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Billy Paul

[Posted] RD: Inge King

Nominator's comments: Well Accomplished Australian Sculptor. Created well praised sculptors. Was a member of the Order of Australia. Article in good condition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is in good looking shape, importance to Australian art seems significant. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets RD criteria. Article quality is good. Mamyles (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose highly derivative, and of no influence in her field, just a reflection. An article being in good shape is a requirement, not a reason for posting. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Medeis; weak due to good quality article that does a good job explaining the subject's role. Spencer^T♦C 05:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thnk if someone is called " a pioneer of contemporary sculpture" they can justifiably be included in ITN's RD section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets RD criteria of significant in her field, and article is thorough and well referenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I saw this marked as ready but on checking the article that at least one section was in the wrong tense (even referring to 2014 in the present tense). I've fixed that section, but I've run out of time to do more checking. I've removed the "ready" marker until someone else has confirmed the whole article has actually been updated to reflect her death. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks like it's in good shape, marking "ready". Spencer^T♦C 19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --Jayron32 20:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2016 London Marathon

Nominator's comments: The men's race was won in a course record (and just shy of the world record), the women's race was eventful with the winner falling at about 23 miles and hitting her head - these could be reflected in the blurb if anyone can do so succinctly. I've chosen to picture the men's winner solely because that's a much better than the one we have of Sumgong (and I didn't manage to take a better one today). Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on improvements We need more prose in the article (info on the course and some documentation of the results/recap as described above). --MASEM (t) 21:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Improvements now made. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now prose has been improved. Whizz40 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But you buried the lead... They ran the race in outer space! But seriously, the article is in sufficient shape now. --Jayron32 13:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Papa Wemba

 If Prince is given a blurb, Papa Wemba at least should be included in RD. 84.161.244.15 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after improvements - Notability is there, but this article is poorly referenced and entire sections are not even sourced; also too many "red links." Of course, these things would need to be fixed before I will give my unqualified support: obviously a world music star and fashion icon ("sapeur” youth culture & their adherence to La Sape). Christian Roess (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on improvements - Serious lack of sourcing through the article, absolutely needs to be fixed before posted RD. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. Could reconsider if it's improved, but it needs a lot of work. Also, I don't see what Prince has to do with this, or why he was brought up by the nominator at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Association fallacy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I could support this but, like others have stated before, the article will need a full overhaul before it can appear on ITN. The prose is a bit too colloquial and unsourced for my liking. Fuebaey (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this individual meets RD importance criteria, however the article needs improvement before it is postable. Mamyles (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A Congolese cultural icon. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time on article quality - almost completely unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support after improvements. He was clearly top of his field, essentially defining a genre of music, but the article quality is far too poor to post currently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I marked as Ready after checking the article over. Lots of editing done by different editors, including me. Sourcing and citations and encyclopedic tone, all much improved. But please check it over and unmark the "Ready" if you think it needs more work to be ITN/RD ready. Christian Roess (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. There are fully unsourced paragraphs. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Including some extremely controversial claims under the Yoka Lokole section. Stephen 01:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • ok, I'll check into these suggestions, make the necessary changes and check back in with you later tomorrow Christian Roess (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD, great job on the clean up. Stephen 05:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to hear and thanks to each of you who helped with edits, appropriate CN tags, and suggestions for improvement. Christian Roess (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Closed] Chinese censorship of Apple's iTunes, Ten Years

[Posted] RD: Banharn Silpa-archa

Nominator's comments: Former PM, leader of Thai Nation Party. EternalNomad (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• support - top-field politician. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reviewing his page he seems very important to Thai politics. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Former leaders of any country should be RD. There's a few unsourced statements but these all appear to be factual statements of his office positions, easily checked by blue links, so article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - prominent and influential politician in Thailand, article seems thorough. MurielMary (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - former top politician of a major country. Article is in decent shape, except for a couple of unsourced paragraphs. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've sourced all remaining unreferenced sections. Marked as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article in good shape and former PM of Thailand. Notable subject. Full support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't seem to be getting much international coverage. He was only PM for a year as he seems to have been quite incompetent and something of a joke. "Queen Elizabeth Taylor"! Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] Discovery of Amazon reef

Nominator's comments: A significant find in the oceanographic and ecological community; one of the largest coral/sponge reef systems in the the world, larger than the Belize Barrier Reef, recently discovered near the mouth of the Amazon River, where it was unexpected that such a reef would even exist, let alone thrive. Philip Terry Graham 22:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a major, unexpected, exciting discovery. Article is taking shape nicely. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Covered in mainstream demonstrating the significance and surprising nature of the find, and the article is in decease shape for this. (And if there's opposition to this, keep in mind this is a great DYK too) --MASEM (t) 23:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Big time mainstream media coverage for this. I see that the ITN Nominator also initiated the Wikipedia article and, as Zanhe points out in his 'support' above, the article is coming along nicely.- Christian Roess (talk 02:01, 24 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Support as excellently argued by the nominator. Banedon (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Quantum tunneling of water

[Closed] Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016

[Posted] Chadian presidential election

Nominator's comments: 25-year incumbent remains in power. Results came out last Thursday. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The landslide seems to have been a foregone conclusion. Business continues as usual there. He's beaten the same guy three times now. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think despite the predictable outcome this should still be posted; this has gotten some degree of news coverage, perhaps due to the alleged irregularities and the fact he is viewed by the West as "a bulwark against Islamist militants in central Africa" according to the BBC. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support - a presidential election is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While this is almost at the point where this specific ITNR is small and unexpected, the questions around the election make it significant enough to post still. Article seems ready. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What questions? If they're significant, they should be made clear in the article first. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are there - under the Conduct section. What's there explains why this wasn't simply a run-of-the-mill election with well-predicted results. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the implied significant question is "What didn't the government want the media to see?", that might be good to note in the blurb (and flesh out in the article). Otherwise, I'm not sure the average reader is going to recognize that as the point. Mainly appears to have been a fair contest with relatively low viewership ending in a clean sweep for an incumbent who will carry on as usual. Andrey Koreshkov also gets some degree of news coverage for that (or Jon Jones, at an AP level). It may seem odd to hold a president and champion to the same standard, but it's also a bit odd to paint this president with the same "inherently notable" brush we use for G20 leaders. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 08:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted to RD]: Lonnie Mack

Nominator's comments: RD has been busy for the past couple days, but the article seems to make a strong case for his importance as a guitarist and in Americana music. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Quite the influential musician.--Catlemur (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notability, quality isn't the greatest but it seems to be good enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Importance is there, and the article looks to be at a reasonable good quality level (with room for improvement) to post. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The notability is there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Never heard of him, but guitarists I have heard apparently sounded better because of him. That works. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Stephen 02:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose This individual has not won any awards beyond a state level (and then only one) and does not seem to meet the criteria for "significant in his/her field". Does not appear to have had any chart-topping hits either. This was a very rapid posting, only 5 hours from nomination to post - could there be more discussion to allow for other viewpoints?? MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. The key point is that sources report that in his style and technique he was highly influential on many important rock musicians - not that his own personal achievements, number of pop hits, etc., reflected that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Ferenc Paragi

[Posted] Prince

Nominator's comments: Major singer, with multiple hits over the years Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has it been confirmed it is him? The Telegraph article I am reading says there has been a death at his house and they fear it is Prince. Other US news sources are citing TMZ, a gossip site, but not saying it's definitely him yet. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not confirmed yet. Though TMZ did break the Michael Jackson death, and Prince had some illness issues last week. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Premature They haven't confirmed who died yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the AP just tweeted that it's him. Support RD. Might be a time to break out a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak wait: A lot more reports are coming out, but we need to be absolutely sure before we declare him dead and blast it all over the front page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AP article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - shocking and huge news. Jusdafax 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for more confirmation, but support otherwise. -- KTC (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added a blurb, so feel free to fix that as needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The highest support. Can it be in purple text? Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full blurb once fully verified and updated. Prince is a history-making artist who was still extremely relevant (he released two top-ten albums in 2014), and his death was both premature and unexpected. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb upon update; AP is reporting it is him. This is a case of the death itself being notable, aside from being the death of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with blurb but can the blurb please be amended to add that he is also a producer? American singer, songwriter and producer? He was extremely respected within the music industry for his production skills. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support RD social media is going mad too

as for his page, watch out that we don't link to a page that's got "Sorry, the servers are overloaded at the moment. / Too many users are trying to view this page. Please wait a while before you try to access this page again. / Pool queue is full"Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - no question. Enormously influential. Blythwood (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious support. - one of the all time icons. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - Though I have never appreciated his music he is a top-field musician.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb - in this instance I feel this goes beyond just RD; the article is good and detailed and the impact is significant given his relative early age and that he was still working in his field. Pedro :  Chat  17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the biggest stars of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Article is minimally updated, but will no doubt be further updated as details are reported in the news. Thue (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• PULL, but Support blurb but article needs improvements - Importance is close to that of Bowie, and this was out of anowehere death. I can ignore some of the larger chunks of unsourced text in his musical career history (that's more a matter of checking against the blue links) to expedite posting, but there's things outside that that are subjective unsourced statements (one section tagged, and a handful of CNs). These absolutely need to be fixed before posting, but we should try to post this once these basic issues are fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The counter argument to this is that posting it will bring people to the page, and they will help to fix some of the outstanding issues. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, before this was posted, his page had to be locked down due to a flood of edits causing conflict. This is not a case of needing to post this to get people to help edit. Though I would support having the article in its current state at RD until the major CN and orange tags were fixed up. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Suggest pulling out unsourced material, and reposting on the talk page for discussion. Also suggest a photo. Here's a decent one from Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Prince_(musician)#/media/File%3APrince.jpg Jusdafax 17:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support - obvious case for a blurb. The one section tagged does not contain any controversial material. No doubt it will soon be fixed. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it up I just added a bunch of {{cn}} tags, but as Mjroots points out, none of the material is controversial. The article is in otherwise good shape, and hopefully interested editors will add needed citations as the day progresses. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There will be plenty of people now willing to help source the cn tags. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I'm fixing a few CNs now as time permits, but they don't seem bad enough to justify pulling the article in this particular case as the vast majority of the article is in good shape. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• support, use purple somehow. 107.2.90.199 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong post-posting support For all the reasons we ran one for Bowie. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose using purple somehow Bowie didn't get half-blue. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full blurb This is a shocking news about the death of a very popular person in the music industry that certainly deserves full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• We're under attack, we need to declare martial law. Count Iblis (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• So this is what it sounds like when doves cry. :( This one is a no-brainer - Prince more than deserves his own blurb. His impact on contemporary music (and to a slightly lesser extent, popular culture) have been almost unparalleled over the past three decades. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Chyna

Nominator's comments: Pioneer in wrestling. First female to participate in various matches, former champion at various levels. Well known in and out of the wrestling world. Thechased (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support One of the more notable wrestlers from the past couple of decades. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 06:43, April 21, 2016 (UTC)
• Support. A household name in her time and after it. She wasn't just top of her field, she basically caused a field which had been entirely dormant in North America to exist whole-heartedly again. And so help me if someone brings up the "but it's fake" argument—Meadowlark Lemon didn't play "real" basketball for a living, and Christopher Lee wasn't really Dracula either. GRAPPLE ^X 08:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, her obituary is currently the most-read news item on the BBC website, according to their own listings. GRAPPLE ^X 08:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Notability per above, article is in pretty good shape. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Received mainstream popularity in the late 1990s. Still the only female wrestler I can name off the top of my head (being a non-wrestling fan). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is already ready, but I'll just point out she was the only woman with a serious run in professional wrestling, outside of a women's division. That's going back decades before The Fabulous Moolah was even born. And she's still the most atypical body in Playboy. Essentially Susan B. Anthony, but badass. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no objection to this being posted (although her contributions to women's wrestling are usually over-emphasized). But this being posted so quickly really exposes the ITN process as being more about fame than influence. Dusty Rhodes, Nick Bockwinkel and Verne Gagne, three legitimate headline stars for decades, were all passed over and I basically had to harass admins to get Roddy Piper posted because it was heading for a good old "sorry too much time has passed". Chyna, who always was more of a tabloid curiosity than a wrestler, being put on RD ahead of those 3 (or 4) would be like posting Anna Nicole Smith but ignoring Alec Guinness. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because she's famous, it's because she's a woman. Piper was damn famous. That's my guess, anyway. And no, I'm not complaining. About time wrestlers got some promptness! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reviewing the RDs in question, it appears more that this article at the ITN nomination point, was in good shape , while all the other mentioned examples had dubious article qualities that took time to work through or were never sufficiently improved upon. This reflects that ITN is meant to highlight quality rather than straight-up importance. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. But Prince just made this posting look relatively plodding, and that article is fairly unsourced, as of now. He also wasn't your traditional woman. Certainly tabloid famous. It's probably a complex mix of things, as most things are. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Scorpion0422: See Apophenia for the explanation for your problem. To wit: You're attempt to assign agency (and thus blame) for a result you didn't like, when the real reason is random, unconnected events which have nothing to do with each other. There is no grand plan for ITN, and no set of standards beyond "whoever shows up that day to nominate and/or vote on and/or promote an article". The fact that one particular article gets posted in a timely manner and another does not has nothing at all to do with anything you are saying it does. There is no reason why Roddy Piper took a long time to post and this one got posted quickly. You're brain is seeking out patterns in the randomness. Those patterns don't exist. There is no reason, and thus, nothing broken we need to fix. --Jayron32 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose this has nothing at all to do with your hatred of rock? All part of the same system, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Seriously though, randomania is running fairly wild, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove your text, sometimes the system glitches and when two people post near simultaneously, instead of generating an edit conflict, it removes the text from the slightly earlier post. If this happens again, tell me, and I'll fix it myself. The second poster has no awareness of the glitch even happening, so cannot be blamed. If this happens again, either fix it yourself, or directly ask the person whom you conflicted with, and they can fix it for you. Help:Edit conflict notes that sometimes the system misses the edit conflict warning. There are lots of known bugs in the system; if you wish you can report this one, but this is common enough that I'm sure the devs are aware. More importantly, when you have a problem with something I do, don't leave hidden messages at random places around Wikipedia hoping I'll trip over them. Come to my talk page, speak in plain language, tell me of the problem, and I'll fix it. There was no need to involve anyone else in this technical glitch. --Jayron32 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed. I've done it before, too. Just figured it odd enough for a small note. Sorry for wasting your time. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point Jayron. It's quite simple: Chyna was a somewhat famous wrestler at a time when wrestling was very mainstream and her name was kept in the news thanks to various tabloid-esque exploits. This got posted quickly based on name recognition alone and not any of the notability criteria. The three names I mentioned are considerably more influential and none were posted because they lacked the tabloid presence of Chyna. One user even opposed one of the nominations because they had never heard of the individual. This goes beyond wrestling: notable individuals who have been retired or inactive for decades get ignored because their deaths don't get much coverage. Chyna gets posted immediately because she gets twitter coverage. Dusty Rhodes was an exception: his was torpedoed because of the tried and true "I don't want this posted so I'll waste time with quality complaints then ignore the responses until too much time has passed" method. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this despite having never heard of Chyna before today. I simply saw a nomination that was marked as ready, and had a clear consensus support for both notability and article quality. I had a look at the article and saw no reason there not to post, and so I updated the ITN template. There is no hidden agenda - I would have acted the same had it been anyone else's nomination I happened to be the first to see.

The only thing you can do to make the sort of people you think ought to be on ITN have a smoother, quicker ride here is to spend time making sure their articles are of good quality before they get nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. The words "pioneer", "trailblazer" and "opened the door" are getting thrown around a lot, but it's been fifteen years since she "made it known that women can compete and defeat men in wrestling" amd "inspired a generation of women to do the same", and nobody's come close since. WWE doesn't even let women wrestle men in video games today.

She was exceptional and extraordinary, but that's about it, as far as my voting agenda went. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scorpion0422: It's quite telling that, instead of listening to what others actually say, you ascribe motive (and nefarious motives at that) to people whom you've barely met, and who's inner thoughts you have no way of reading. I'm not sure that doing so is a proper way to conduct business here, and when you do so, it makes others not want to listen to you. --Jayron32 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight: Scripted-wrestling woman, not really known (other than tabloid fodder and a porn-mag appearance) outside of wrestling fan base, gets an RD - while Doris Roberts, an actress that entertained millions over several decades is (in the same week) slowly deliberated down to an RD no-go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.203.229 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's lucky. Choppers, the last surviving member of the chimp family that made PG Tips the best goddamn tea in Britain, couldn't even catch a mere Deaths in 2016 nod. But Felix Simoneaux Jr. lives for 110 American years and they're all over him. Mysterious ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted to RD]: Leonie Kramer

Nominator's comments: Dame of the Order of the British Empire and Companion of the Order of Australia. First woman chancellor of University of Sydney and as per our article first female professor of English in Australia. Also voted in the Australian National Living Treasures. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability but the article is under-referenced at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on improvements Agree importance is met by the OBE/OA titles, but does need a bit more referencing. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf and Masem: I have cleaned up the article. Please have a look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that is much better. If I was reviewing for GA though I'd prefer fewer than the current 9 uses of "she was", but that's not a barrier to an RD listing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree these improvements are sufficient for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is in good shape now. AIRcorn (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable Australian and article is in good shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Stephen 01:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Harriet Tubman to appear on the US $20 bill

[Posted] RD: Victoria Wood

Nominator's comments: One of the biggest names in British comedy and won buckets of awards - one sign of her notability was that almost everything she starred in had her name in the title. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While I see a few unsourced statements, these appear to be on non-controversial facts (namely the programs she had been involved with and when they ran, things easily checked from the blue links). --MASEM (t) 14:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - One of the UKs top comediennes for many years. Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I came here to nominate this but was too slow and got edit conflicted. Quite possibly the top female British comedian of all time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A trailblazer for British comedians and writers. And she once came out top in a poll of "People You'd Most Like To Live Next Door To"... Lemonade51 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously, per nominator's rationale. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Article looks good. I wouldn't be opposed to TRM going ahead and posting this.--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support. She was one of the best British comedians. I've added a few sources to the article too. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we shall merely beat you on the bottom with a Woman's Weekly. Post-posting support, while I'm at it. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Close] RD:Walter Kohn

[Posted to RD] RD: Estelle Balet

Nominator's comments: World champion snowboarder killed at the age of 21. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on expansion As TRM notes, two sentences is not an article. We should be able to include sports stats, if anything, if she is a World Champion. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm always skeptical of RD noms where the article didn't exist before the individual's death. Also the red links at Freeride_World_Tour#World_tour_winners makes me wonder, is this too niche? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as sources are calling her a "snowboarding champion". Concern about the lack of articles among the champions can be taken as a proxy in a way, as Nohomersryan suggests, hence my reservation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Oppose the article is a stub, and the article on the championship she won is a stub full of redlinks, indicating little importance. Calling this person anywhere near the top of the snowboarding field, or even "widely regarded as a very important figure", would be pushing it. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on expansion As TRM notes as well. She was on the top field of her sport. Her death has been mentioned in media all around the world. BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose see below per Nohomersryan. Tragic and unexpected death, but she was at the top of an extremely niche sport. As Muboshgu has noted, most Freeride World Tour champions don't even have articles (neither did Balet until a few hours ago). -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Number of articles are irrelevant to notability.BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It's ok, it's a pointy oppose. The fact that the New York Times has reported this is clearly indicative that this is of no interest and that she was of no importance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• NYT reports many deaths (I've been a subscriber for 20+ years), including Doris Roberts below, but only a fraction are ITN-caliber. This one is not. -Zanhe (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually you're right. I now realize that she was the youngest Freeride World Tour champion, and the article has been expanded a bit. Changing my vote to Support, once the citation tags are fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Twice world champion, youngest ever world champion. Article taking shape nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a quick check on Google News sees this individual's death being reported prominently in the UK, the US, Canada, Spain, Poland, France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Romania, Sweden, Peru, Norway and Macedonia, to name a few. I think the newsworthiness and notability is thus asserted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I agree with Muboshgu's take on this issue (above): why wasn't there a Wikipedia article for this skier before her death? If her accomplishment(s) in this sport were noteworthy, there would've been an article (or a stub at least) before her death. IMO (this is only my opinion) this woman was stunning in every detail: stunning in her daring, her talent, her moxie, stunning in her physical appearance and beauty. And now stunning, too, is the manner of her horrific death. The media is grasping at every stunning and sensational detail for the sake of spectacle and to sell copy (or "click bait" as it's called now). When it comes to a RD, spectacle and sensation should not be the over-riding detail that makes their recent death noteworthy and newsworthy. If it is the over-riding detail for why the death is being reported then it isn't ITN-worthy.– Christian Roess (talk)

  It's not. The reason for the death being reported globally is that she was a double-world-champion and was killed skiing aged 21. Your personal analysis is fascinating, but the objective answer is obvious, hence why it is making headlines around the world, with or without "stunning and sensational detail" (which I haven't seen anywhere). And if you agree with Muboshgu's take, then you should be supporting. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  TRM is right, she was known for her achievements in sports, her death is sad but has not been sensationalized at all. Christian Roess seems to have strong opinions about her, but that is POV and not guideline based. I also do not see any relevance to Estelle being beautiful and her article not being ITN worthy. That I created her article today after her death is purely coincidental, had I known more about her before that I would have created her article earlier. So that is no indicator for ITN either, a person can be notable and have their article created the same day as the ITN nom. BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's be clear, Christian Roess: it gave me pause, but didn't prevent me from supporting the nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  ok TRM and BabbaQ, and Muboshgu (so noted, thanks): you all make valid points, and if there's more input later making a strong case for support, I'd be willing to drop my "oppose" (but at this point I can't see changing it to "support"). But once again I did stress the point above:"IMO (this only my opinion)" because obviously my own opinion is not a criteria for judging whether or not an RD is ITN-worthy. I won't support for two reasons: (1) her fame is in a niche sport; and (2) there was no Estelle Balet wikipedia article before her death. Christian Roess (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  After considering the issue, I have to agree with Mamyles' opinion below that the lack of an article is more a sign of how Wikipedia is incomplete, than that she's not notable or RD material. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Given that snowboarding is a well-known sport (at least in the US), and she is at the top of the field for snowboarding, she meets the RD criteria. The lack of an article only goes to show how incomplete our encyclopedia is, and itself has no bearing on notability. Mamyles (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional "oppose" given that I have classified the article as a stub with only a few lines of text. Have seem articles with more information than hers knocked back on quality grounds. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your classification is wrong as it is not a stub anymore. The stub template was removed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It's 992 B of prose. If it's not long enough for DYK (which has a 1500 minimum), how can we think of it as anything other than a stub? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My general rule of thumb is that there must be roughly a page of text not including lists, refs etc. I will have a look at it again and further discussion should be on her talk page. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it as start class. There is an infobox, an image and the article has structure. It is clearly not a stub, and wasn't a stub when you marked it as one, Captialistroadster. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon expansion. "Niche sport" is irrelevant(even if true); what matters is if she was very important to her field- which she seems to be for being the youngest world champion in her field. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If she had an article before her death I think this would get posted as full blurb. RD is enough. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there had been an article, it would never have been a full blurb. Never.Correctron (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD Stephen 06:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Patricio Aylwin

[Posted] 2016 Kabul attack

 The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as this is a mass murder with high number of casualties, which recieves decent media coverage globally. But wait until the article is tagged for work in progress.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but give a few hours for more details to filter in and make it to the article. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - If it bleeds, it leads.--WaltCip (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Article is fairly complete and well-referenced. Tweaked the blurb with accurate count. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major attack with high casualty, widely reported. Article is short but decently sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major attack.BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – agree with the assessment of QEDK and Zanhe above. Christian Roess (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article actually. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – per article quality and significance. Though tragic, near routine in Afghanistan. Baking Soda (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ongoing: Mediterranean refugee drowning

[Closed] Historic flooding in Chile and Texas

---

[Closed] RD: Doris Roberts

[Posted] Boston Marathon

Nominator's comments: Is a stub, needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The male winner is? The female winner is? Did they come #1 and #2?Correctron (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that it's common sense that how the current blurb is worded is standard form for this result, implicitly stating that the first name is the winning male runner, and the second the winning female runner. I don't think clarification is needed on this given the expect result from the sport, but it also can't hurt to add "..win the men's and women's Boston Marathon, respectively." --MASEM (t) 23:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "common sense" that the male winner would be listed first? For that matter, why do we almost invariably list the male winner before the female one in events featuring both? There does not seem to be any good reason for this practice, which could be regarded as reflecting systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a universal system bias, across sports and other accolades too (Oscars, Emmys, Grammys). And arguable for the marathon, the men's winning time was better than the women's. By all means, let's identify who was who, but I don't think this is necessary a systematic bias that WP readily can fix - one of the two needs to be stated first and its near universe that the men's result is the highlighted one. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, you've just summed up the problem nicely: "the men's result is the highlighted one." That fact that the systemic bias exists elsewhere is not a reason for us, in exercising our editorial judgement on blurbs here, to perpetuate it. Now none of this says that the women's winner must be listed first here, but we should not automatically assume that we should always list the men's winner first. Perhaps, as you suggest, there is good reason for listing the men's winner first here on the basis of winning time (though I have some doubts about this), but there are other events where you could give reasons for listing the women's event first (e.g. women's finals occur first in tennis grand slams). Neljack (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in article's present state. Obviously the race summary must be added but I would think that it should be relatively easy (within the day) to get an article of the same quality as 2015 Boston Marathon in place. Support otherwise in ITNR. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose we can't highlight an incomplete stub on the main page. What would be directing readers to in order to learn more about the topic? Woefully inadequate article. --Jayron32 01:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose obviously. Not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, quality is not quite at the level of the 2015 race, but the details are fully referenced. Stephen 03:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a confusing posting. Normally a consensus is reached regarding the quality of the article, when it is agreed that it is up to the standards of ITN. No consensus was reached here. If an article does not meet the quality standards as determined by consensus, it does not get posted - simple as that. It was the case with the 88th Academy Awards this year. It should be the case now.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support The article is now of sufficient quality, the problems I noted above have been fixed. --Jayron32 12:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Polio vaccine

[Closed] Democracy Spring arrests

[Closed] Mehmet Kaplan resigns

---

[Closed] Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

[Posted] Ecuador earthquake

---

[Posted to RD] RD: Bill Gray

Nominator's comments: A giant in the field of meteorology, especially with tropical cyclones, Dr. Gray had a tremendous career spanning over 60 years during which he created the framework for how we study and forecast tropical cyclones to this day. He pioneered seasonal hurricane forecasts, and issued these for over 30 years. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until this hits the news. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @331dot: popping up now: [10], [11], [12], [13]. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for such a "giant", his article is weak and he as an individual certainly doesn't appear to have been showered with awards: most of those listed are so inconsequential it would seem that they don't even warrant a Wikipedia article. If the claim that "Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting" is true, then it should have more than a couple of words on it in his article, and certainly more than the unreferenced muddle that currently exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to delve into fleshing out that section today but here are additional sources backing up his status as a pioneer of seasonal hurricane forecasts. If I have time tomorrow, I'll work on expanding the section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man and 331dot: I've cleaned up the section in question and expanded more about his career. Where does the article stand now? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the merits as very important to his field, but I concur with TRMs assessment of the article and as such oppose on quality. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've noted the WaPost has taken note of his death, and with other sources, I think his importance to the meteorology field is apparently clear now. --MASEM (t) 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and marked ready--article is now full referenced with quotes attesting to his respect among the field and his discovery of the N Atlantic hurricane cycle. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Stephen 23:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Why was this posted at a title the article isn't at? Nohomersryan (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question belongs on the errors page or at Step's door. There is no way we would have posted John Ronald Reuel Tolkien in full. μηδείς (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Mean Tolkien's article's not called that. I asked at errors before and didn't get a real answer, so I just want to know the status on what version of a name goes up on the ticker. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'd go for the common name. If the article needs to be moved, that's a subject for WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted to RD] RD: Malick Sidibé

Nominator's comments: "Pioneering" and award-winning photographer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems to meet RD criteria. Needs some more sourcing before it's postable, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support According to obits appearing all over mainstream media (ie., NYTimes, BBC, AP, Telegraph, Time) he's a major photographer with international fame and reputation. More sourcing has now been added and the CN tags removed. Christian Roess (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets RD criteria IMO. Can go once tags are down. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tags have been removed. I have checked and rechecked sources after making numerous revisions. I have marked as Ready. Christian Roess (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready, there is an unreferenced section with a controversial assertion and an OR observation. Stephen 23:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Posted to RD after further improvement, thanks. Stephen 05:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Czech Republic renames itself

[Posted] 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes

 Banedon (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article is quite brief right now, needs more work after which it can be posted. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not even the strongest earthquake that happened today. Stephen 11:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Stephen, doesn't appear to be out of the ordinary, a small death toll all things considered, article is poor. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Seems relatively minor as far as Japanese earthquakes go; Japan is an earthquake-prone nation and they usually do well in adapting to it to reduce damage and casualties. Unless something changes I don't think this needs to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, not as significant as other quakes even with a 6+ magnitude, and the death toll is relatively small. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Support, as multiple quakes now are more damaging. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Added alt1 - Pinging Masem, 331., Rambler, and Stephen. --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot Sherenk1. George Ho (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem that the earthquake actually nominated was a foreshock. I'll reserve judgement until more info comes in. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The region was just hit by a magnitude 7.0 earthquake (~10 km from the prior epicenter). I assume we can expect additional damage and casualties. Also, on the general theory that more ITN posts are better, I don't think the threshold for death and destruction needs to be all that high to justify posting an earthquake story. Dragons flight (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article has been expanded with new quake information. Timely story and the damage is considerable. Death toll is notable and Japan is a leader in earthquake resistant structures so death toll is less than it would be in many countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Widespread disruption, damage, and numerous casualties. Added ALT2 to reflect that there are two major earthquakes involved in this story. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it for you. George Ho (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted ALT2. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

New hormone

Nominator's comments: Discoveries of such biological stuff in humans are almost always newsworthy, it seems. Putting it under the date of Cell publication. Article is open to further expansion. Brandmeister^talk 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I don't think hormones are like elements in that there are a finite number (though there likely are a finite number that would appear naturally), but the linkage to various medical conditions in humans can lead to treatments and cures. It is a shame that I can't find anything more mainstream than New Scientist talking about it, sorta failing the "ITN" part, but science news can be useful to include. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - The article is currently very technical, but I suppose there hasn't been much popular science coverage yet. Still, some of the information from the New Scientist article might be useful for making this more accessible to the general reader. Smurrayinchester 08:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest DYK The article is such that only field specialists can appreciate it. That's a product of the press that it has gotten so far (that is, subject journals and a few pop-sci write ups), so I won't hold that against the nomination. But I also note a general lack of news coverage on this item, and the impact that this discovery has is not apparent, and will probably remain that way for many years to come.128.214.163.138 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Volodymyr Groysman

 Smurrayinchester 09:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because consensus was to post once the resignation became official. Brian Everlasting (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both bolded articles look good to me. --Jayron32 12:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per preceding comments, previous discussion. Sca (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - thanks for nominating. Banedon (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted per both the previous blurb discussion and a double check that both articles are at quality per above supports. I have not brought the picture in as it doesn't appear to be protected at Commons, but once that's done we should swap that out. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The one used in the article will be protected by Krinklebot at 4pm. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  16:00 UTC? (eg about 45 min from when I write this?) I'll replace then if no one else does. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you need to re-appraise the admin instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been appropriately schooled. Picture updated now. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's that easy, thanks to David Levy and Krinklebot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted to RD]: Nera White

Nominator's comments: If we believe her article, this basketball player " was considered one of the most outstanding female players in history" The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support will remove the weak if and when the lead is expanded to a complete summary per WP:LEAD. Otherwise, article is tolerable for the main page. Not the best, could use expansion in some areas, but significance is clear, and the article isn't lacking any referencing. --Jayron32 12:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do so, it is easy to expand the lead, anyone can do that, including you! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I did, along with several other editors. Looking much better. Thanks for the encouragement. --Jayron32 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - She is certainly at the top of her field; but I agree that the lead section should be expanded. Blue Adventure (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do so, it is easy to expand the lead, anyone can do that, including you! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lukewarm support - She's not a particularly well known individual and this is barely in the news. However, I do think being the first woman elected to the Basketball Hall of Fame is pretty impressive. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I never heard of her, but she appears to be an important women's basketball player. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not in the news. Compare with the Golden State Warriors story, for example, which is getting major international coverage. This item hasn't even gotten out of Tennessee. Andrew D. (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Her article indicates she was very important to her field. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First female basketball player in the hall of fame gets my vote. Miyagawa (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD, Stephen 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] NBA best record

[Closed] Kobe's last game

[Closed]Peabody Bankruptcy

[Posted] South Korean election

Nominator's comments: National election, additionally notable for a range of reasons: the upset win that defied all previous opinion polling including the exit poll, the party system upheaval with a new third party, and the problems this poses for President Park. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not very significant in South Korean; not around the globe either. The President Park Geun-hye is still in control. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR probably applies (there's some conceptual subtlety about whether it's a "general" election since the ROK is a presidential system, but the term is widely applied to it in reliable sources (Google "South Korea" "general election")). Anyway, it's odd to claim it's not very significant around the globe when it has received international media coverage for going on a week now (Nikkei, AFP, Economist, all from before the election). —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding my !vote due to ITN/R listing of general elections and mass coverage. I still don't believe it can change a thing. After all, the president is the daughter of the assassinated dictator, and she might do some influence in the future. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's significant for the same reason different parties controlling Congress and the presidency is significant in the U.S. (divided government). Her legislative agenda is now impossible, and she's a lame-duck president. Have a look at the Nikkei article I posted above, which talks about the significance of the election. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• General elections are ITNR so we don't need to address notability. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment added altblurb. A hung parliament isn't really a victory in any sense. Needs a prose summary of the result. Fuebaey (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuebaey: I can see the concern with the "victory" phrasing, but the proposed blurb also removes most of the context. Specifically: removing "liberal" is unhelpfully decontextualising, since "Minjoo" will mean nothing to most people, and the upset of previous opinion polls and wider expectations needs to be mentioned. I also think the margin of one seat should be mentioned either way. I've edited my blurb to remove the "victory", let me know what you think. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but I think the article would be helped to explain - outside of the lede - why the surprise and the projected impact of the Minjoo's upset victory, if that is going to be part of the blurb. (If was just that the result defied the last public opinion polls, eh, not so much). AltBlurb seems fine otherwise. It's otherwise in good shape from what I can tell. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I added a brief analysis in the Results section of the article touching on and citing these points. There are a wide range of sources using phrases like "surprise", "upset", "crushing" etc. It's difficult to find sources discussing specific impact precisely because nobody expected it until it actually happened, but the general significance is now there and cited. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's probably going to take a few days for any impact analysis to come into line. (I have no knowledge of how this would affect NK/SK relations and subsequently the rest of the world but I could see that being one of those points analyzed). I would be fine with the first blurb now with the explanation this being a surprise result. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick note: I altered the wording of the last part of my blurb to follow the condensed style of the alternate; I haven't changed the content otherwise. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Please, anything to get horse racing and golf masters pushed down the page. Articles look good. Brian Everlasting (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 05:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The blurb as it stands is inadequate. Minjoo has 123 of 300 and Saenuri have 122. Neither party is a clear winner here. Can I suggest as a blurb: "The Minjoo Party wins one seat more than the ruling Saenuri Party in the South Korean National Assembly." Smurrayinchester 08:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the blurb as it stands is ok because it says plurality which should be clear enough that no majority was won. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] End of Argentine default

Nominator's comments: As said, it is the end of a sovereign default that lasted for more than a decade (and 5 presidents since then). Clearly newsworthy. Cambalachero (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Noting that there are a couple CNs in the lede and a few paragraphs in the latter half that are unsourced, overall this looks like a fairly comprehensive article on this debt situation, and once those CNs are fixed, should be ready to go. Topic is definitely of interest and appropriate for ITN. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support I found the updated information in the article, but it would be nice if it were added to the lead and/or made more prominent (such as a section header) so that readers could find the update easier. But it's there, and the article is in good shape, I see a few CNs in the lead, but the article is essentially completely referenced in the body. Ideally, the CNs would be resolved, and the update made a bit more prominent, but it's not in bad shape right now. --Jayron32 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have fixed the two citation needed tags (they were referenced elsewhere in the article), and mentioned the end of the default at the end, linking to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks pretty clear to me. Banedon (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but I don't understand why the blurb pipes "pay the holdouts." I would like a blurb without any pipes better so I could understand it. Brian Everlasting (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Have added altblurbs. I personally hate turns of phrase like "Argentina agrees to..." when "The Argentine government agrees to..." is meant, but maybe that's unavoidable for length reasons. Smurrayinchester 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sorry for the mistake, but the default was declared in 2001, not 2002 (December 23, 2001, to be precise), so it was 15 years ago. The article was mistaken in that detail, and I confused it with the end of the convertibility law, which was also part of the crisis of the time but a completely different issue. Cambalachero (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted alt #1. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Singapore rape ruling

---

[Closed]RD: Balls Mahoney

[Closed] RD: Arnold Wesker

[Closed] RD: David Gest

---

[Closed] US, UK, French foreign ministers to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

[Withdrawn] 2016 Stavropol bombings

[Posted to RD] RD: Howard Marks

 The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question Why do you , as nom, suggest hes top of his field?Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. I said he was important. That is self evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well RD is not "imoportant" cause if theyre notable enough they have pages and not all those with pages get posted to ITN. So there has to be more as that's not "self evident".Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, why do you think hes top of his field? "Just a punt" is not a reason.Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RAAD just had 2 controversial deaths in the last couple of months that had FAR bigger implications and the northern Ireland change of government (direcrly related) was not posted here. oppose meanwhile. (but changeable)Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you're on about. Marks' death is featured on BBC News' global homepage. Your points are not relevant to this nomination, thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Notable drug trafficker/public figure. Baking Soda (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notability is there, article is good. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not highly notable Sherenk1 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support as one of the most notable people in the field of drug smuggling. Article looks to be in good shape too (although there is still a heavy reliance on his autobiography). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel notability is high enough to merit an RD listing but I'm uncomfortable posting a biography to the main page whose dominant source is an autobiography. GRAPPLE ^X 10:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The majority of this article relies on a single primary source - once that is sorted, then we can see. Challenger l (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The article is fully referenced and fairly extensive. Challenger 1 raises a good point, it is mostly sourced to his own autobiography, but said autobiography appears to have been published by a reputable publishing house, and meets the requirements of a reliable source. It should probably also have more sources, but I don't have any major problems with this appearing on the main page. --Jayron32 11:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. The sourcing is a concern, but he qualifies on the merits and like Jayron I don't think it should be kept off the page for just the sourcing. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes there is a heavy dependency on Marks' book, but there are 24 other sources as well, which are a hell of a lot more than many RDs that have been posted here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Notability seems negligible. Sca (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We have come to a curious time in ITN where, in any given nomination, support !votes simply claim "this is notable" and oppose !votes likewise "this is not notable", without substantiating evidence thereof. We need to set a benchmark for asserting or disputing notability, otherwise this is simply reiteration of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, whereas this has been posted on the front page of BBC, support for inherent notability and the detailed article, which although requiring improvement, goes into sufficient depth to assert notability. I'm also surprised we did not nominate, let alone post, the death of Henry Hill in June 2012; if posted, that would have served as a good basis for comparison.--WaltCip (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WaltCip, the standards at Wikipedia are not based on "stuff I have heard about and/or care about". In all levels, and at all places, in Wikipedia, coverage in reliable sources is the measure of all things. When major, highly respected, news organizations devote considerable resources to covering a subject, it is not for us to say that the story isn't notable, based on our own personal criteria. --Jayron32 18:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like such persons are on the brink of criteria. Not everyone would agree that weed smuggling is one of the RD virtues. Brandmeister^talk 18:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is loaded language.--WaltCip (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no virtues. There is only 1) extensive coverage in reliable sources and 2) quality of the article. Nothing else enters into the decision making here. --Jayron32 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Noted smuggler, author and media figure. The article is of interest, and despite the unusual nature of this subject for ITN, this is a good nomination which has my whole hearted support. Jusdafax 22:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A rather interesting life, having been in the news both for negative and positive aspects of what he did. The coverage I see in other sources seems to give weight that this is not just a B-list celebrity or small-time crook but someone of some reputation, and support on that as well as being an interesting, well-sourced read. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a couple of sections below this one there was a discussion about how Fuzheado posted an article with orange tags, and how it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. This article also contains a big orange tag at the top, which would imply that it should be automatically rejected or at most support pending improvements regardless of significance, and yet even editors who are particularly fastidious about article quality are supporting? If we post this, ITN officially makes no sense. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's a bit more complex than that. It's pointed out that many of the sources are based on autobiographic works, which itself is not bad for a BLP which has clearly demonstrated notability beyond that. This should be fixable in time but importantly, there are no really unsourced statements on a BLP (though one can contest if the autobiographical ones are true, we have to assume they are until proven otherwise). It is an orange tag but one that for ITN I would overlook for posting since this is something that can be fixed with more eyes on it. On the other hand, when the orange tags are about lack of sources, which is a no-no for BLP, that's a reason to not post. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's why some people (especially those with scientific backgrounds) think ITN makes no sense. It's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted. No exceptions are listed. This ought to make supporting the posting of such an article as nonsensical as opposing an ITNR item on merit, and yet it doesn't!? To say that this orange tag can be fixed by having more eyes on it does not make sense either, since all articles can be fixed by having more eyes on it. Meanwhile orange tags that say "this section requires expanding" are effectively attach-able to any article except possibly GAs and FAs. Certainly for example currently Pfizer is featured and yet sections like its history during the 19th and 20th century can be tagged as such. The only reason the orange tag is not there is because nobody has tagged it. Orange tags about lack of sources can be fixed by hiding / deleting the relevant text, which immediately makes the article "presentable", and the only reason the orange tag is still there is because nobody has deleted the material. And so on ... the more I think about it, the less sense ITN makes. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key word at WP:ITN's guidance on orange tags is that articles with serious orange tag issues may not be posted. That means we have some discretion in the first place, but that also means that not all orange tags are equal. A "lack of sourcing" orange tag on a BLP is a much more serious problem than a "source to autobiographical works" orange tag, for example. It's not the case that having an orange tag is a bright line. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado not only posted an inadequately sourced article, he posted it without any clear sign of consensus. And for the sake of accuracy, Banedon, there was no orange maintenance tag on the version he posted. Also, while you claim "it's clearly stated in the policy that articles with orange tags are not to be posted", you should be aware that the ITN instructions are not a policy, nor do they state what you claim. For reference, the instructions currently say: Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD Stephen 03:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Ukraine PM resigns

---

[Closed] RD: Duane Clarridge

[Posted] Masters

Nominator's comments: Fourth round needs a summary. Existing prose could do with some additional references. Fuebaey (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - major sporting event, following in line with the previous year(s). ///EuroCarGT 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support decent paragraph of updated content for the fourth round. Rest of article quality is acceptable and it's in the news. I'd suggest delinking golf. I'm sure most people have a basic grasp of it (maybe this is a Western bias!). Jolly Ω Janner 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the ITN now that has a few sports articles there for precedence.Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not quite notable, however article looks good Sherenk1 (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already been deemed notable based on the fact it's listed at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the major golf tournaments, I would say The Masters is the most notable and prestigious of them all, so I fail to see how it is "not quite notable". Care to explain Sherenk1? Andise1 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITN/R and update seems adequate. Ready to go IMO. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• IN THE HOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEE!!!!' Once it's been updated with more prose. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support There's a short prose synopsis of each round, which I think meets the bare minimum. It would be nice if the lead were expanded a bit, but this is tolerable for the main page. --Jayron32 11:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ITNR and consensus that there is enough in the article to warrant posting. Bencherlite^Talk 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sweden becomes the first country in the world with its own phone number

[Reposted] Kollam temple accident

Nominator's comments: High death tooll and this stuff seems to be ITN worthy. Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Notable and article looks good enough. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Currently a global top news story with unusually high casualties. First new ITN item in days. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled Most of the article is unreferenced, including BLP-statements. Stephen 07:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Fuzheado this is the third time in a week or so that you've rushed into making bad decisions. Please take a break from posting items at ITN and perhaps work on improving them instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-posted - All unreferenced content has been referenced. You can do both. Instead of pulling stuff, why not help fix articles too? -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know to whom you are addressing that comment but it may have passed you by that I always improve and fix such articles, and I do that before I post them. I also look for a consensus, not just one support. Now please, more haste less speed. I don't want to have to take this further. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support, echoing The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s comments. Stuff should not be linked from the main page where there are serious issues to be addressed, except in exceptional circumstances, which this was not. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question So uh, is consensus not even something we do anymore? Even if we apparently don't give a damn about quality, how was this ready to go with a single opinion voiced? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already mentioned that. This was posted without consensus and without quality check. Double fail, and not for the first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trout for posting without consensus and without any clue as to ITN's standards. Please stop doing this. Post-reposting support given its current condition and newsworthiness. Bencherlite^Talk 09:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-reposting support on its merits as a major accident; this was initially posted far too quickly, leaving aside the state of the article(which was far too poor). ITN is not meant to be a news ticker and does not need constant updates if the article quality is poor and it lacks consensus(one person does not make consensus). 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What's all this then? - I have no problem with the condition of the article now, but Fuzheado's posting (and re-posting in wheel war fashion) without attempting to form a consensus sets a very uncomfortable precedence here.--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I moved the article to Puttingal Temple fire. May want to follow suit, since redirects are normally discouraged. Jolly Ω Janner 19:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since this is already re-posted and there seems to now be a consensus, I won't vote, but wanted to agree with the others that seeing an article nominated, created and posted within, apparently, 3 hours and with only 1 supporting vote apart from the nominator is disconcerting. Maybe it worked out OK this time but I can see other instances where this would be a very bad precedent. The fact that it's "first new ITN item in days" doesn't justify skipping over established consensus and article improvement steps. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Closed] RD: Tony Conrad

[Posted] Grand National

Nominator's comments: Needs a race summary. Fuebaey (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this really of international significance? Rcsprinter¹²³ (relate) 23:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "international significance" really a requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.177.184.228 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."--98.180.123.57 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't opposed. I have asked a question. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) 11:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is "international significance" a factor that needs to be considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.56.3 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • As the IP user has suggested, international significance is not required and the lack thereof is discouraged as an objection; if international significance was required, very little would be posted. Further, as this event is on the ITNR list, it will be posted as long as the article quality is sufficient. If you feel this event should not be on the ITNR list, please propose its removal at the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose aside from the lead, there is no referenced content. Jolly Ω Janner 07:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on the horse is adequately referenced. The race article needs a bit of work on refs, but I will try to fix that later today. Tigerboy1966  08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Give me a ping when you think it's ready or a reviewing admin can just ignore my previous post in light of more recent support. The Grand National is (I think) the biggest horse racing event in the UK? There's ample news coverage to support notability. Jolly Ω Janner 09:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I think it's OK now. Tigerboy1966  13:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• not ready This is on WP:ITN/R so there is no question about notability, all we are here to judge is (1) whether the event is actually in the news this year, and (2) whether the article is of sufficient quality to post on the main page. The answer to the first question is a definite yes. The answer to the second question is not yet - the "race overview" section is blank and the "media coverage" section is unsourced. I didn't see any obvious issues other than those though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added "Race overview" and sourced "media coverage". Tigerboy1966  13:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support see above. Issues resolved. Tigerboy1966  15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support few more minor tweaks made and now ready to go, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ITNR and consensus to post after improvements from its original condition. Yet another year in which I failed to win anything in the workplace sweepstake (being able to say "I have Wonderful Charm" was a good joke while it lasted though, even if Mrs B. disagreed...) Bencherlite^Talk 16:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] SpaceX CRS-8

Template:ITN candidate

• Support, because space stuff. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, noteworthy first and a project that has been followed by the media for the past several months. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support primarily based on the successful reusable module landing, which is an impressive feat. Article while sources could get a bit more indepth. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I thought about nominating this myself, but this space stuff was too confusing for me, I almost picked the wrong article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 05:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Remove Zika virus outbreak from ongoing

I can't see any real "ongoing" info from about March. Does this still need to be on the frontpage? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No longer needs to be on the front page, I agree. Ongoing news should be just that. Jusdafax 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not really considered by most to be an ongoing story -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I note that experts are worried about what might happen during the north hemisphere summer. Should that expand, we might need to readd but that's a decision then, not now. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Google News has hundreds of fresh stories still. For example, this one has a good timeline with a WHO announcement on April 7 which seems significant. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An "ongoing" tag is not exclusively for stories where there is ongoing developments, rather those where these developments are being promptly added to the article. On that second count, this article is lagging '''tAD''' (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no major developments have been added to the article in the past week. Jolly Ω Janner 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed per consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 175+ workers killed (Syrian Civil War)

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate I don't know if there is an article about this story, but is the notability is high. Mirror RT- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need an article to evaluate, and a proposed blurb; this is not the forum to request the creation of an article. Ideally the ITN candidate syntax should be copied, pasted, and filled in. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mu - No key article in blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't answer I have no article to assess the quality of. What Wikipedia article are you trying to direct readers to? --Jayron32 12:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Both sources cited have since retracted the claim that the workers were killed. That conclusion was attributed directly from the Syrian military, which is not a reliable source. The fate and location of the workers are as of yet unknown. Mamyles (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see any reliable sources backing this up, nor do I see an article updated for assessment. Suggest this is closed before a keen admin invokes IAR and posts something. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very premature nomination. An article needs to be provided for assessment. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per previous two comments. Neither current (14:45) AP nor NYT stories mentions killings. Sca (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 7 Template:Cob

---

[Closed] National Guard of Russia

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose, suggest DYK - It's an internal guard, comparable to the US's National Guard from what I read so while one could say there might be potential international issues, I really don't see it as something demanding a UN-type response. But as a new topic, DYK is perfect for this. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless the UN responds with sanctions, I don't really see a reason to post this.--WaltCip (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What reason does it qualify? Sherenk1 (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This doesn't seem like a threat to NATO or the EU any more than the US National Guard is a threat to Russia. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 6 Template:Cob

---

[Reposted] RD: Merle Haggard

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Support on article improvements - Importance as an influential country singer is there, but there's huge chunks of unsourced text throughout the article, and that absolutely needs fixing before posting. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support Forty #1 hits on country radio. Huge sections of unreferenced prose in his article, though.. Teemu08 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if improved Definitely meets notability requirement, but article needs clean up, more paragraph breaks in certain places, sources, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I will pitch in where I can. The article needs a lot of work so if you have time to spare, this definitely deserves to go up. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 18:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support I agree that the article should be at least minorly improved before this is added. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He is one of the all-time greats of American country music as shown by Kennedy Center honors (very small subset of people get those), Grammy Awards, Country Music Hall of Fame etc. I will try and do my part by sticking in a few citations later and breaking up a couple walls o' text.TheBlinkster (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat*Support Obviously notable, and I would improve the article myself, but a certain editor (and admin no less, if you can believe that) has decreed that I don't do that sort of thing, and my vote can be discounted, so I won't bother and you can ignore this vote. (link). Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok? Nohomersryan (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:POINT alert... WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hab

• Support - Article needs more sourcing especially in his career section and the legacy section is outdated. But he was significant and clearly meets the notability requirements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the biggest names in Country history, notable for being a part of the Outlaw Country genre. JanderVK (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notability in no doubt, but several maintenance issues with the article which need to be addressed before this can be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only long stretches without citations are in the "Collaborations" and "Legacy" sections, and in an article that is otherwise this complete and in excellent shape I can't convince myself that there's a serious quality issue at this time.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The quality of the article is irrelevant because ITN has no significant role as a gatekeeper in such cases. About 450,000 people already read the article yesterday and the topic is clearly in the news. We should simply recognise reality and get on with it. If a few Template:Tl bothers editors then they should fix or remove the content per Template:Tl. It doesn't bother me because there are many, many eyes on the article and so any obvious errors would soon be spotted. Andrew D. (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Ping Agreed, this aspect of RD (and ITN) has bothered me. Why does an article have to be of notably higher quality than an average Wikipedia article before it gets listed in RD or ITN? The value of news on the front page is its currency and immediacy. It doesn't serve the readers or the public well in delaying the posting of deaths and news happenings when people are actively seeking out WP's content on these matters. That's why I have err'ed on the side of being bold with faster posting of stories. Trust the wiki way and users to make the articles better. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content highlighted one WP's front page (ITN, DYK, TFA, etc.) is meant to represent some of WP's best work. So asking for an ITN article that is sourced to policy requirements for a BLP is a minimum. We're not expecting GA/FA quality, and elements like MOS or other various style aspects are far less important, but making sure core content policy aspects are met is an absolute requirement. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The purpose of ALL content on the main page is to direct readers to quality Wikipedia content. ITN just covers quality Wikipedia content that recently happened in the real world. DYK covers quality wikipedia content that was newly created. OTD covers quality Wikipedia content on historical events. TFA covers the best Wikipedia content. --Jayron32 12:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A notable musician, at top of his field (country music). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - never heard of him but he is world famous in the U.S I guess. Anyway good article and musical career.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Small §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - clearly sufficiently notable, even to a non-US non-country-music-lover like me. Article could be improved, but it's currently not so bad that it can't be posted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Done - Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:U please either follow the instructions (Template:Xt) or seek to have them modified so we post items in such states. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you really think that in the 12 years the Merle Haggard article has been edited (since 2003) that we should hesitate now in putting a front page link to his bio? The values of ITN/RD have really gone off the rails if that's the case. See my earlier comment to Template:Ping on why this is a disturbing practice. The value of news is its currency and immediacy. It is a real betrayal of our revolutionary roots to sit and wait when we know Wikipedia is such a highly consulted reference. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and see my concern, the rules and Masem's response to your comment. If you want to change the way we do things, please start a discussion to do so. In the meantime, please pull the item with three maintenance tags, one of which, disturbingly, indicates this BLP is out of date. Do behave. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, do note that those pageviews have occurred without the item being on the main page. The main page is a place for us to emphasise quality. If you disagree, please start a mature discussion about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:U listen, you obviously have a thing for these early postings, I note you posted Zaha Hadid far too soon which was pulled, improved to a basic quality standard, and then re-posted. I think you should probably step back from posting things for a while, or at least appraise yourself of how things work here, or, as suggested, you start a discussion that allows you to post BLPs without paying any real attention to the quality of sourcing. If you need some help with finding the instructions most admins follow here, let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but pull - Premature posting based on quality. Consensus was clearly against posting the article in this current state.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ITN shouldn't be posting articles with orange-level tags. That's the standard the instructions set. If anyone wants to change the instructions so that we can slap up substandard material on the basis of arguments such as it's in the news now / it's getting lots of hits now / he or she was popular / it doesn't matter / it can be improved once it's up then let's have that discussion at WT:ITN and we can then ignore forever all opposes based on article quality or supports conditional on article improvement. Pull, improve, then repost. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article should stay. It has gained a high number of supports and is not substandard. BabbaQ (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lack of sources in the 2nd half of the article fails BLP/WP:V. Most of the supports above noted issues with article quality. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled it is clearly not of sufficient quality, per many of the notes above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment TRM is right to pull this. When I saw this went up I was pleasantly surprised that so much got done overnight, then disappointed that actually a lot of it was just swept under the rug. To those who say quality doesn't matter: thanks, not only did you not help, you minimized the contribution of those who did. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's good that OldManNeptune is doing this work as all those readers are getting the benefit. I read through the article myself on my commute and, not knowing much about the subject, found it to be a good read. But having Merle Haggard's name on the front page as a RD should not turn on this issue. As an example, I also read an interesting article published by The Guardian: the country music legend's 10 greatest hits. That's a good read too but notice at the end that it says "Due to an editing error, Merle Haggard’s age was misstated as 86. He was 79." So, we see that even professionals can make mistakes but they publish regardless. We should not be trying to pretend that we're perfect. The important thing at ITN is to be reflecting the major news items. To be leaving out such obvious entries is a sin of omission which is an error too. Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Then feel free to propose changes to the ITN rules. In the meantime, we won't post such items in such condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN's rules are not policy whereas we have actual policies like WP:IAR, WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO which tell us that formal rules are not as important as commonsense principles like logic and evidence. Merle Haggard was posted, is still posted and the wheel-warring just shows that those rules don't command a consensus. People seem to be trying to apply such rules in a rote way by, for example, demanding one citation per paragraph. That is a poor measure of quality and is not what's wanted by our core policy, WP:V which is that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." So, in the case of Merle Haggard, what is it that we should be checking? I would focus on key facts like:

1. Basic biographical facts like age and date of birth which mainstream sources often get wrong
2. Controversial issues like Haggard's views on Okie from Muskogee. Was this from the heart or a tongue-in-cheek parody or a commercial pandering to the redneck audience, or what? Haggard seems to have changed his views or modified his story over the years and so getting the balance of this right isn't easy and would require good sources.
3. There are long lists of awards and hits in the article but still no inline citations for any of this. Some editors like Kww are very insistent on the need for good citations in such cases.

• Just in case this discussion goes any further, there IS an inline citation for his "hits"; I added one cite yesterday when we were working on the article to his artist page at song://database which is the most comprehensive online source for what records made chart positions. If you go to his page there you can see every song he ever did that made the US charts in table form. As for his views on "Okie from Muskogee", I also added about 5 cites for that, to the best sources I could find which includes an article specifically focusing on all of his different views about "Okie" over the years and at least 1-2 books analyzing his position on the song, and I did some rewriting in the section as well to fit with the sources I found. While I don't think the article is GA level since it obviously had to be done in a hurry, when I work on these articles I do not just throw a cite in there every couple of lines to make it look like one is present. I do put thought into it. I don't really have a dog in this fight policy-argument-wise, but if you are going to make arguments about articles into which I put effort then please don't misrepresent them for the sake of your argument. As OldManNeptune said, that is not really fair to people who choose to make an effort to help the article. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:U your efforts are admirable and please don't take anything Template:U to heart, he doesn't really understand what we do here, nor does he make much of an effort to do so other than to sink every discussion in links to policy etc which suit his POV. The good news is that we're managing very well without his input and actually, in a lot of cases, better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, another 400,000 people read the article yesterday so it's still very busy. The article is still being edited and there's plenty more to do as it has not passed a significant quality threshold like GA. It's graded B-class by a couple of projects while the other RD, Cesare Maldini, is graded start class. This indicates that we have weak and inconsistent measures of quality and so, if we're going to talk about quality, we need better measures. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It got those hits before it was on ITN. We do have a clear definition of quality, read the rules. Just because some errant admins choose to ignore them, it doesn't make it right. Feel free to start a centralised discussion about posting articles with maintenance tags and obvious BLP violations, I look forward to seeing your proposal, instead of all the ad hoc criticisms of how ITN and its rules are implemented. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Today, I have been trying out the new mobile app created by the WMF for Wikipedia on the iPhone. It's interesting to note that, unlike the Android app, this doesn't list the ITN entries. Instead, it has a different section of Top read on English Wikipedia. This currently lists:

1. The Adventures of Tintin
2. Ravi Shankar
3. Rogue One
4. Merle Haggard
5. Panama Papers

That's a reasonable way of presenting hot topics, just like what's trending on Twitter or the top stories on BBC News, and Merle Haggard does well in this view. ITN is becoming redundant... Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. More than sufficient quality to be featured on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment OldManNeptune, I and some others have added lots of cites last night and today. Is it looking better to post now? TheBlinkster (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's already been re-posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still some things I will want to work on later but for now I'm happy that it's at least presentable. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Posted] Pfizer & Allergan merger called off

Template:ITN candidate

• Support - If we post proposed mergers, it follows that we should also post the cancellations or suspensions of said mergers.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed it's almost like a correction, and a big one at that. I believe we posted this merger in November last year so we really should post the "unmerger", makes perfect sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Ec Support – Significant political-financial event, as the deal would have allowed Pfizer to avoid $1 billion in U.S. taxes by domiciling in Ireland. Sca (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but only because the merger was posted. Other abandonments of mergers should be assessed on their individual merits. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Mjroots and WaltCip. If the announcement of a planned merger/buyout/restructuring is important enough to post at ITN, the failure of that to go through for any reason should also be ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS — Altblurb2 offered above. (Although "inversion" is the correct term, I believe the word is generally understood in relation to weather phenomena.) Sca (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Done - Posted -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull it was a disgrace this planned merger was ever posted in the first place. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Calm down. The only thing this really does teach us is to be judicious and cautious when promoting stories about mergers, in particular their wordings. No need to drop down to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" level about the whole thing, really. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so silly, TRM, we all know that it is you who suffers terminal hysteria, and I opposed this when it was nominated on the very rational grounds that regulators obviously would not approve it. If you want, we can go back to the IBAN I requested, and that I charitably withdrew at your request. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here. We need to be cautious as TRM states but the cancellation was just as newsworthy as the announcement. Not posting announcements was a defacto ban on most business stories here and it is good that we get some. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Medeis, I don't recall being "disgusted" by stories like this, take it however you find it. If you're feeling so inclined, get the IBAN reinstated as soon as you like, no skin off my nose, particularly given some recent contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is you, not I, TRM, who use the word "disgusted", (twice), above. I have no notion of how to respond to, nor any desire to respond to such insanity. μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it, and stop waving the IBAN in my face every time you read something you don't like that I've written. By all means seek its reinstatement, as I've said there's very little need for us to interact in any shape or form as your contributions demonstrate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 5 Template:Cob

---

[Posted merged blurbs] Resignation of Iceland's Prime Minister

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Major news. Should this be merged into the Panama Papers blurb though? Otherwise we'd have two PP entries. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major fallout from the papers. I think it should be merged into the blurb, thereby bumping it to the top. Article quality looks good. Mamyles (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although it might be good to merge this into the blurb as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - merged blurb probably better than two separate blurbs. Mjroots (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted merged blurb The story seems self evidently major enough (resignations of heads of government are normally covered here) and the article is of sufficient quality. Consensus was for merged blurb. Will also post picture shortly. --Jayron32 16:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT Did he actually resign? I keep seeing things that say he's only temporarily stepped away and hasn't resigned his position. This is also the case for his wikipedia page.Correctron (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily changed the blurb to "steps down" until situation is clearer. Looks like some sources are saying he's having second thoughts, different sources are still saying "resigned". Hoefully it will all become clearer in the morning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heard right now on the BBC that he has handed his powers to his deputy indefinitely (or at least until next election). Popular demand may move said election sooner than planned. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as this say that he has already asked the president to dissolve parliament and call early elections. I'm not exactly clear on Iceland's constitution, but I think from there the actual issuing of writs (or whatever it's called there) is a formality.Or maybe not, on further reading - his coalition partners are resisting calls for early elections, as are parts of his own party. GoldenRing (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC says he's resigned. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He stepped aside, but did not resign/step down. See "Iceland Premier, Named in Panama Papers, Says He’s Not Quitting". Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Tweaked blurb to say "Steps aside temporarily" which also reflects the sources in the article, and the wording of the article. --Jayron32 16:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 4 Template:Cob

---

[Closed] Erik Bauersfeld

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Weak oppose. Skimming the article, I don't see how he meets any of the RD criteria; he doesn't seem particularly important to his field. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not sufficiently notable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sadly, he's well-remembered for just a single role - despite his years, he doesn't have the accolades or influence that merits a listing on RD. Challenger l (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fails to meet the threshold for importance for RD. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Posted] NCAA basketball tournament

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

P.S. The game itself was absolutely sensational. It will almost certainly go down as one the greatest NCAA Tournament Finals in history. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Linked article has not even been updated for tense. Woefully in adequate at this time. If there were a full game summary, this could go on the main page. We can't post an article about a completed event written in the future tense with no summary of the event we're directing readers to. --Jayron32 02:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We often see sports items nominated while the competition is ongoing. Of course the article shouldn't be posted until it's updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry, article quality won't be an issue. Just need to wait for the RS coverage to come out when the game ends in 30-45 minutes first. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ping Work is ongoing, but the article is now well updated. Let me know if you have any specific requests for improvements, however. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Change to Support Article has much improved. Good job for those who cleaned it up. Well done indeed. --Jayron32 11:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support when completed and updated. This is a major, major, major event in the United States every year. I strongly urge those who claim it's only an "amateur" tournament to look through past year debates and try to understand the importance of "March Madness". The tourney was not posted in 2012 or 2013, but was posted in 2014 and 2015. I don't think I can stress the importance of this event any better now than I or others did in these past years. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was also posted in 2010 & 2011, so 4/6 years since ITN took its current format, for the record. (Prior to 2010, people just suggested things and an admin posted/didn't post without any real discussion.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah very good, I didn't see the 2010 and 2011 discussions when I looked. I think that if we go 5-for-7 a new ITN/R proposal would be in order. (It failed when proposed in 2014.) – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose sorry about this but oppose for the same reason as I opposed the Boat Race. Not top level competition, exclusive to certain subset of people only, etc. With that said I feel like there's something here that can be clarified, and mean to start a discussion on ITN's talk page. Banedon (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Neutral - on the one hand, I feel this should not be posted for the same reason The Boat Race should not be posted (not top level competition, exclusive to certain subset of competitors only, etc). On the other hand, if we're going to have The Boat Race on ITNR, then because the arguments for and against posting this are so similar to that for The Boat Race, it feels like opposing this is opposing an ITNR item on merit. For consistency's sake I favour a discussion on whether to include this on ITNR. If that turns out to be "no", I oppose this nomination; if it turns out "yes" instead then I support. Banedon (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Boat Race is on ITN/R and has twice been retained on the list following challenges, so there is clearly consensus that "top level" isn't a requirement. The definition of what constitutes "top level" is also pretty arbitrary - something like Premier League is a "lower level" of football than the World Cup, but it would be absurd to leave it off ITN for that reason. OTOH, the NCAA uses different rules than the NBA which itself uses different rules than European basketball. These different rules lead to different styles of play, so in some sense each of the "top level" of its style of basketball. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the weird thing. If The Boat Race is on ITNR, why isn't this also on ITNR? The arguments for keeping The Boat Race on ITNR are eerily similar to the arguments for featuring this. Just consider them: both events are not top level. Both involve only students from certain universities. Both receive widespread national coverage. Both bring about an annual controversy on ITN. And so on ... the more I think about it, the more I feel that instead of starting a discussion on ITN's talk page, I'm simply going to nominate this for ITNR and see what happens. Banedon (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two were actually proposed at the same time. The level of support (roughly 2:1) was similar for both, but the NCAA was much more heated. The closing admin decided Boat Race had just enough and NCAA basketball was a little short. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done [18]. I may have broken protocol a bit because I've after all nominated an item I don't believe in on a personal level. However I also value consistency: if we say A, we also ought to say B. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Let's forget that this is an amateur collegiate event. Let's forget that this is a national sport that is not even the highest level of its kind. Let's forget its lack of tradition and historical significance as compared to other events with which it is frequently compared, such as the Boat Race. Now, with those points aside, we need to draw attention to the issue of systemic bias that pervades ITN, and as was discussed on the talk page. Equivalent events to this may go unnoticed in other countries if only due to the fact that this event is occurring in the United States. In order to fully mature as a truly global encyclopedia, we need to look past events like this when deciding which articles to showcase and improve for the ITN "ticker". Obviously it would be a gargantuan effort to attempt to showcase every collegiate sport worldwide, so it would be in our best interests to exercise discretion in this case. So although this has been posted for two years in a row, the current climate and consensus at ITN demands that this trend not continue.--WaltCip (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The counter to systematic bias is not to exclude notable content becomes it comes from a favored region, but rather to work to promote notable content from other areas (which I myself have often done in the past.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to consider then is the "one-and-done" aspect of NCAA basketball. If it were not for restrictions set forth by the NCAA, basketball players from high school would jump directly from their graduating class into the NBA as a professional player. The arbitrary restriction requires that prospective players attend college for at least one year (hence "one-and-done") prior to their transition. So considering this, it's hard to argue that this is a "top-level" event, even in its own form of basketball, considering that it is an arbitrarily placed buffer.--WaltCip (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary to argue that this is a "top-level" event. It's a major sporting event every single year, reaching the noteworthiness needed for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading this right, Walt? We may post a competition between two English universities renowned for being among the very stuffiest in the galaxy, but not a tournament of public universities in a much younger nation in a sport played (at this level) disproportionately by minorities, because to do otherwise would be biased? To quote you yourself, I think your objection is "only due to the fact that this event is occurring in the United States" rather than on any well-reasoned foundation. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't have to post "every collegiate event" because most collegiate events are not especially notable for various reasons (the US is, for instance, fairly unique in having university sports scholarships as a key part of the sporting system, which means that college sports teams are made up of professional-quality players). The only newspaper I can find that mentioned Hartpury College winning the 2015 BUSC National Championship - the highest UK university football trophy - is the uni's local paper. In fact, I can't even tell if the 2016 final has happened yet or not - that's how little the British media care about uni level sports. I don't think it's any kind of bias to recognize that the US sporting hierarchy is unique in this respect. Smurrayinchester 11:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's important that we recognize that it is not ITN's job to emulate news sources, and it has never been its job (as you can see by my facetious April 1st nomination, just because something is receiving news coverage, that does not mean it is newsworthy). That other university top-level sports are not receiving equitable coverage is a reflection on the media's "business decisions" in reporting more than it is a reflection on the event itself or whether it is fitting for recognition on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - I support posting this every year as long as the article is updated and in good condition, but how this game played out I think makes it more worthy to include in ITN. Andise1 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick, let's hurry up and get this posted before Europe wakes up! --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT - Important cultural event. Let's get this up before TRM crawls out from under his rock. Correctron (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, that's uncalled for. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And rather inaccurate too. According to wikt:ramble, he either lives on a bed of shale over the seam of coal or a section of woodland. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Rambling Man has been fine with its posting in previous years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, folks. Correctron is trolling you all. As my mother would have said, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do find it somewhat odd that TRM would reply in such a manner, it is nice to see he can take a jab and be a good sport.Correctron (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is in decent shape. While I do not know of the event myself, it is covered by reliable sources and I'm willing to believe the nominator when they describe its importance in the US. Opposing events because they are only important within one country is a rather unworkable arrangement. Jolly Ω Janner 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I was somewhat surprised to see that last year's article (according to this at least) only garnered a handful of pageviews (about the same as an above-average DYK) and far fewer than the much maligned Boat Race. Still, it's somewhat popular amongst Wikipedia editors, the article is in very good condition and we could use a news update. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, the main tournament article (as opposed to the championship game one) is what garners most of the views (874k in the last 30 days), see [19]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible oppose Jeez not this again? Not the highest level, we do not post. Easy as. (And no, we shouldn't post the Boat Race either) Fgf10 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though our readers disagree with you...? If we're not here to serve them, what are we here to do? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean college football will receive your support?Correctron (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he's opposing for that reason, probably not. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or course it won't. Fgf10 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is the highest level of college basketball, which receives a great amount of attention. There is no requirement that we only post the "highest level" of something; often "lower" levels get more attention. (This isn't even really "lower", just different) Even if we don't post this every year, this particular year seems notable given the nature of the victory(win at the last second) and is already being called "the best title game ever" [20] When the team the President of the United States picks to win makes the news, there is clearly some level of importance beyond other events. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is one of the highest level competitions in the sport - let's not unduly privilege professional league play. And as the Boat Race reminds us, collegiate competitions can definitely be of outstanding significance, both within the sport itself and culturally. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even as someone outside North America who doesn't follow the American sports at all, I'm aware that college level is a big part of the US sporting culture, and this - plus the Rose Bowl Game - are worthy of posting. We should probably take this to ITN/R to avoid rehashing this debate every time it comes up. Smurrayinchester 11:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, I think some people complaining that this is not the highest level don't know how US sport leagues are arranged. There is no general system of promotion and relegation between divisions like there is in most European countries - the leagues are private companies who sell positions on a franchise basis to the highest bidder. Sometimes there is a clear monetary difference between leagues (such as between Major League Baseball and Minor League Baseball) which cements one as able to able to afford the best players, but in this case, the NCAA and NBA are pretty much parallel - they each draw the best players from their respective pools.) Smurrayinchester 11:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking in terms of, if a team of aliens lands in the US tomorrow and challenge the US population to a game of basketball, a team from which league is more likely to be chosen to play? The two leagues may each draw the best players from their respective pools, but that's not really relevant. If the best team from the NCAA plays against the best team from the NBA, it's pretty clear who will win. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the answer there is clearly the Harlem Globetrotters. Either that, or mutant atomic supermen. Smurrayinchester 12:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or animated characters and Michael Jordan). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Alex. Also the article is in good shape. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Systemic_bias Fgf10 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No equivalent event from a country any other than the US would have had any chance in hell of being posted. Fgf10 (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're trying to do here. We don't expect the Norwegian wikipedia to give the results of the Superbowl in their version of ITN, even though they probably (I'm guessing here) have an item of the champion of their 1st division football league. That isn't systematic bias on their part, it's providing links to quality articles on current events that are of interest to their readers. The mission statement of ITN.

Systematic bias is an actual problem; trying to use it to complain about the posting of the NCAA bball tournament does a disservice to the cause of reducing it, because people who are not already on board will tend to associate the idea of "systematic bias" with "weird thing I probably don't need to listen to", and are more likely to ignore it when it is actually applicable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Boat Race has been posted for the past two or three years. That's not a US event. If you're going to complain, at least base it in fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting Oppose. Neither this nor the Boat Race should have been posted. Neither are important outside their own countries, and neither are the top level of their sport. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From above: "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." And the "top level" argument is not accurate as discussed above and in past years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please accept that our readers and their opinions on what to read are far more important than your own view of how we do things. In actuality, The Boat Race has millions of viewers outside its own country. But why let a fact get in the way of a good old-fashioned whinging story? P.S. Where does it say that "top level of their sport" is one of the ITN criteria? Perhaps I missed that in the last ten years of editing here. Perhaps you "don't like it". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto I would be happy to support an "equivalent event" if it is truly demonstrated to be equivalent, in terms of cultural impact, viewership, etc. The way to fight systemic bias is to work to post stories from other places, not to artificially restrict stories from being posted. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that users like Template:U and Template:U prefer to see stories in the ITN section that are seven, eight, nine days old and try to prevent stories which are in the news and which are popular with our readers being posted. It's a curious point of view but not surprising from such users I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the lazy way out of the problem of systemic bias. The fact of systemic bias is real. The ratio of articles posted from certain countries (mostly the largest anglophone countries) is higher than the ratio of stories coming from other countries. There are two possible solutions to this problem, and BOTH raise the ratio of stories coming from underrepresented topics 1) is to improve articles on topics which are underrepresented and 2) is to tear down articles on topics which are overrepresented. The desire to fight systemic bias is not a problem. The problem is that the solution from Fgf10 et al. is that the primary way they want to achieve this is option 2) tearing down work (through denigration, belittlement, and scorn) rather than option 1), which would actually result in more articles in the encyclopedia getting better. Just to pull a random, non-anglophone sport out of the air, we don't usually post the results of major badminton championships, but only because they are in the state of 2015 BWF World Championships, which is clearly not main page worthy. If we posted badminton as well as basketball, the systemic bias would be negated by being more inclusive, and everybody wins. The solution that involves tearing down the work of people who improve basketball articles is not desirable. Instead, find other sports whose articles need improving, make those main page worthy, and we'll post those! But no, that would be too much like right. --Jayron32 20:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, users like Template:U and Template:U don't actually improve articles, they just criticise things they don't like. That's a pretty easy gig, and perhaps it's now more obvious to them why their "votes" are discounted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support. The 2016 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament article has received ~874,000 page views in the last 30 days. The 2016 Cute Race article received ~58,000 page views. Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 3 Template:Cob

---

[Closed] RD: Lars Gustafsson

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate Template:Archive bottom

[Reposted] RD: Joe Medicine Crow

Template:ITN candidate

• Support As nominator. Probably not a reliable source, but he's also a certified badass. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - I'm actively updating this to source all the claims and update language, and expand where I learn something interesting - I think the claims already there are more than enough to support RD notability. If you find fault in the article, please tell me what specifically you want to see done to make it RD worthy if you don't care to do it yourself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the merits; seems important as a historian and as a leader of his tribe. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and article appears to be in good shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears to be a vital historian and played a role in the importance of his tribe. Received the nation's highest civilian honor. Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Is "historian of minor Native American tribe" now a category that ITN concerns itself with? In the past we've had leaders of medium-sized countries not posted on notability grounds, I fail to see how "unofficial leader of 13,000 people" is notable enough for RD. So nowhere near meeting WP:ITN/DC IMHO, but could be taken up to GA status and posted to DYK. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the previous comments misses the fundamental point. The man was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, the Legion of Honour and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If that doesn't confer notability, I don't know what does. Article could use tidying up, particularly references, but otherwise this is ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is just about good enough. I highlighted a couple of facts that ought to be cited, but even ITN gives a little bit of leeway. Easily passes recent death notability per coverage in multiple major news sources. Jolly Ω Janner 07:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Outstandingly notable in three fields - indigenous community leadership, native history, and warfare - and still at the top of the first two at the time of death. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting to RD. --Tone 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• pull temporarily. I was just about to mark this as not ready as there are still two explicitly marked statements requiring citations, the second of which (his thesis being the most widely cited about its subject) is a significant one. I fully support notability for RD but the posting is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I commented out those two sentences. Should be ok now, when refs appear, we just uncomment them. --Tone 10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your wanting to allow the article to stay on the mainpage, but if the two sentences are commented out, how will anyone (other than the handful of editors who read here) know that they are there and require referencing? Frankly, I'd rather have the sentences still visible with the c/n tags, so that people will continue sourcing them even as the article is mainpaged, in the absence of any genuine controversy or dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence that made the most fuss ("most widely cited") is a lost cause, I've been attempting to source it but it's now a recursive problem where other sites quoted our line so searches bring up copy/paste of this article prior to recent updates. The current wording is good enough though. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you To everyone who contributed. I knew there was a little work to be done when I fell asleep last night, had hoped the article would not be crucified for it but I'm delighted that it was polished in my absence. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Olivier Awards

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose not just prose needed but some serious referencing too. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Posted] Panama Papers

Template:ITN candidate

• Support But article still needs to be improved. Biggest leak ever. A lot of famous people targeted in many countries all around the world so the worldwide interest is definitely present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.66.50 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is crucial that this information gets into the top page.--Catlemur (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find your failure to understand the importance of this event amusing.--Catlemur (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I didn't; Why is this event any more crucial than any other to post? "Crucial" suggests some special urgency to post. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crucial means important, in my humble opinion this is a very important event.--Catlemur (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Huge issue that will remain in the news for quite some time for its impact on a number of well-known personalities including government officials worldwide. Being discussed in German's No. 1 political talkshow right now, it's featured at BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, some Indian newspapers, amongst others. Article is still quite basic but based on reliable, and may be expected to quickly evolve. --PanchoS (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article is a mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still quite basic, yes. Quickly evolving, also true. But I fail to see how it would remotely be "a mess"… --PanchoS (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• When I read it, it said crap like "Data processing More.." That's a mess and something we don't even consider posting to the main page. I look forward to the article being properly formatted and then subjected to review before being posted hastily and erroneously to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Article seems like a BLP nightmare (at least as written currently, and probably by its very nature), which is not a good thing to link to on the main page, even if the BLP problems aren't actually mentioned on the main page. Are all these people being "named" or "implicated" or in the "accusations were made" paragraph in the article actually shown to have specifically done something wrong? Because that's what's strongly being implied. Article would need significant change in approach before I could support. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this nomination is based on a rather strong POV, but an otherwise rather small story. If there are significant convictions or people are removed from office we can revisit this. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What POV? Do you expect a corrupt politician to jail himself and his associates?--Catlemur (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's moot at this point, but "thousands of rich people hid their wealth in tax havens" is missing only the word evil to show the editor's opinion explicitly. The burb as posted is fine. μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major lead and decent article. I wouldn't say "hid". That may be the case, but the more neutral would be "channeled". L.tak (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The blurbs are atrociously written, and the article has a lot of improvement yet to do.--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – It's gonna take a while to thresh the wheat from the chaff. Sca (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the article is messy because the story is still developing, it's a volatile issue, and it will take time to gain some perspective on this fluid situation. In my opinion (because for me this story involves issues of privacy & freedom, money & power and reputations are, potentially, at stake here) an important part of this story will not be the facts involved but rather the public's reaction to the story, ie., "who's side are you on?" Or "what's your opinion?"; by posting so soon on the main page, it's like we are more inclined toward making the news rather than just passing it along, and we are deciding prematurely that this is newsworthy before the public weighs in, via social media, etc.. It's not our job to "get out in front" of the story. But I must say the article is improving. If it continues to make improvements over the coming days, I will be inclined to change my vote to support. Christian Roess (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold. I think this is fine. Let's put the nomination on hold until the article is improved. Feel free to propose alternate blurbs, but I was just going off of the major news headlines. czar 22:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: major news of worldwide relevance. Biggest document leak ever. The article is more than a stub, and while it names people, that's currently all it does: lists people who are named in the leaked documents, giving sources, without claiming anything about those people, at this point. LjL (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: all over the news. plenty of reliable sources. BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has a large list of people who are "named" in the report, yet we don't have any information on these people other than that. At best, the article is a sprawling list that has been poorly written and at worst is outright slander. There's no chance of it being on the Main Page until this is resolved. I raised the issue on the talk page of the article if anyone wishes to help. Jolly Ω Janner 23:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the article improves. It's a really important story, but the article needs work yet. -- Irn (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No opinion on whether this should be on the front page, but alternative blurb II is the only option which is grammatically correct. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is a bit sparse now but is not the "mess" described earlier. Dismas|^(talk) 01:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major news breaking on a Sunday night? Story is growing, the article is in decent shape; it needs work yes but its postable now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once the article is ready. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - alt blurb 3. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - alt blurb 1, quite notable and would be in the news for some time Sherenk1 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Article seemed to be well written at this point in time. I went with a mix of altblurb 2 and 3, but removing the "heads of state" angle since that seemed to me to place undue weight on that aspect of what is a very broad leak. Thue (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Amtrak derailment

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose trivial industrial accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; relatively minor accident. It also already seems apparent why it happened (it hit a backhoe that was on/near the track). The two dead (so far) were not passengers but crew. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I ride this route all the time and this is rather minor so far as fatal accidents go. If it is found the incident was sabotage I'll reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unlike the Bad Aibling rail accident in February which we featured in the news, this is a tragic work accident, rather than a major national scandal. --PanchoS (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Posted] RD: Cesare Maldini

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Death section needs some fixing, including cause, but otherwise looks ok. Brandmeister^talk 17:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good, notability is clearly there. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable person. article is good.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support clearly passes the RD bar and article is decent. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted so sue me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cricket World Twenty20

Template:Anchor Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose First of all, I amended the header, cause I needed to look into the article to actually know what sport you're talking about. Also added an altblurb. As for the article: The tournament article is OK, but we are talking about the final here, and that article needs serious work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what kind of a sport is it where the West Indies win a World Cup and a joint team by them and England is allowed? Totally bogus in my opinion. The commomwealth is seriously messed up... Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, now I get it, they didn't play yet. Oops. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's is done, and looks like Windies will take both. 2 wickets down in 2 overs and Roy out quacking...

We're one great nation in the commonwealth anyways...Sibling rivaly. ;)Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/support. This tournament may be a world cup, but it isn't the World Cup, so I've changed the header accordingly. I've also added a second altblurb that actually gives the proper name(s) of the tournament(s). A change in wording would be required if the West Indies win both, but that seems unlikely at this point. Because we are listing two results, it doesn't seem feasible to link the finals, so the requirement for an update should focus on the main article. (This of course does not mean that the article on the final shouldn't be updated too). IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if we're not linking the finals, there should be a tournament summary for each article. All there is at the moment are match stats. Fuebaey (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixed blurb. Not quite as one-sided as expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (assuming articles up to snuff - link to tournament if the final isn't good enough) - this is one of the major international tournaments, along with the ODI world cup and the Ashes, I think it might even be one of the "standard" list of sporting events. A good dramatic match as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the finals need to be linked and they need to have referenced paragraphs. Right now it's not the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb, which succinctly covers both tournaments. The women's tournament was posted last time and it has only got more coverage since then. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Only neither linked article features any prose about the finals, the men's has some prose in its own final article while the women's has just a at-a-glance scorecard and no prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've updated the sections on the finals in both of the main articles, so I'd suggest this is ready to post. I think the original blurb is most suitable, but I've altered it slightly to give the name of the tournament. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Third Alt Blurb 3 since it mentions the finals Sherenk1 (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I seem to have conflicted with with Template:U somewhat and have instead updated/created the two "Final" articles (2016 ICC Womens World Twenty20 Final and 2016 ICC World Twenty20 Final). Either way I think this is ready to post. I also agree that the original blurb is best. AIRcorn (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both. Articles are in much better shape than yesterday. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted cricket takes over the main page, at last. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, best put your pads on for the backlash. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a shame the Boat Race dropped off. I may re-add it to balance the main page... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But T20 is not cricket! #Realcricket lasts for 5 days with possibility of no result! Plus that skullduggery IPl starts in a few days and in a month itll be back on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you constantly use ITN as a forum for your incomprehensible rants? WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you lighten up?Lihaas (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support and great to see both the men's and women's tournaments given equal treatment in the blurb. Is this a result of the discussion to consistently report the women's version of a tourny when a men's is posted? Whatever the reason, looks good for addressing gender bias. MurielMary (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 2 Template:Cob

---

[Closed] RD: Amber Rayne

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose - Article does not show "top of the field". I see two awards and several nominations (compare Jenna Jameson, for instance). Article is sparse.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article's a bit on the short side. Any volunteers to expand it? She only won two awards back in 2009 and neither of which seem to jump out as placing her as one of the most notable porn actors. I haven't watched many of her films myself. Jolly Ω Janner 08:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While she might be above average, I don't think she rises to the level of "very important" to her field. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wouldn't put her top of the field, e.g. Jenna Jameson, Stoya, Sasha Grey etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

[Posted] Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes

Template:ITN candidate

• Support - also cnn.com corroborates this. At first I was going to vote neutral, but Portal:Current events/2016 April 2 is reporting this as the 3rd successive day of gunfire exchange, and citing (RT) as a source. Whatever the vote (to support or oppose) we should keep an eye on this, it may end up being an "ongoing event." Christian Roess (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We should not take official numbers by word. Both parties are interested in keeping their populace in dark by understating their own casulties and exaggerating those of their opponents. I've suggested my own, more reasonable, blurb. --Երևանցի ^talk 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support neutral altblurb came here to nominate it. Significant escalation of the ceasfire violations. Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but neither of the current nominations appear to account for the Azerbaijani claim of hundreds killed. "At least 30" would be more neutral. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - Biggest escalation of this conflict since 1994.BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 13:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Posted altblurb.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2015-16 NBA Basketball Season

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose. This is not a sports ticker; very rarely do we list anything other than championship games at ITN- and I don't think the end of a home winning streak qualifies(maybe if they had been totally undefeated, but not just at home). 331dot (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but we have been known to put up information of a relevant nature in sports even if the relate to an ongoing season - a perfect game, for example. I accept that this is a long shot, so all I am asking is that people keep an open mind about the nomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I indicated, if they had been totally undefeated all this time, I'd probably support. Home court advantage is strong in basketball. I would add that since it is largely about the Warriors' streak, the Spurs should not be mentioned if this is posted. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Erm no. Since when do we post individual games of domestic leagues? Also ENGVAR issues, 'snapping' means nothing to me here, though I can work it out from context. Fgf10 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this is not so much about the result of the game, but the end of a home winning streak. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Pure trivia. But this would actually make a nice DYK hook, maybe there is an opportunity there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but I'll be honest and say I rarely do anything that relates to the main page becuase its become hideously complicated. That said, if you think its got a chance I suppose I could suffer the expert difficulty to move it over there. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually forgot that the DYK people want articles that have been created or expanded 5-7 fold (like 1,500 words or more) or have been recently promoted to GA status or better. Honestly, after a review of the articles in question, I seriously doubt that there will be a DYK hook here because if I am reading the requirements right these article(s) do not qualify for a DYK hook. That being said, if you're reading the instructions at DYK differently, lemme know and I will follow up on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you read the rules correctly. But if the season article would be promoted to GA status, this could be the hook for a DYK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. I agree with 331dot if it had been a total undefeated streak; a home winning streak sounds like a record just for the sake of a record (e.g. the "team A have now won 10 consecutive games where they scored in the last 10% of the game" kind of thing). Granted a home winning streak is still not at this level of trivia, but still. If we post this regardless, Alt blurb is far preferable to me. Banedon (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Though I admit that this story is probably not fit for ITN, as a sports aficionado I find this story highly interesting. It makes me wonder if Golden State are all they're cracked up to be, or if they're just calling it quits for the regular season in preparation for the playoffs. --WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. This isn't a sports ticker, the season is still ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2016 April 1 Template:Cob

---

[Closed] Kim Kardashian pics

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose Senator, you're no iCloud leaks of celebrity photos. Brandmeister^talk 13:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's looking at you, kid.--WaltCip (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Apparently not notable enough for even a sentence in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if the main page isn't good enough for Jenna, it ain't good enough for Kim and Emily. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jenna will apparently get to the main page via RD someday. Brandmeister^talk 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose April Fools' Day not celebrated globally. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite claims to the contrary, the internet does not appear to be broken at this point in time. Smurrayinchester 13:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A bad version of The Fappening. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support Only if the men's score is posted as well. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per OldManNeptune reasonable request. :)BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The only reason I didn't throw my laptop across the room upon seeing this nom is because I have a calendar. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have a colander? Sca (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or some coriander?--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - doesn't supersede any other items currently ITN. Christian Roess (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just posting this here, amid serious stories, is an insult to ITN. Puerile behaviour, on any date. Fgf10 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up.--WaltCip (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day is basically the stupidest fucking thing ever. I'm with Fgf10. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you "fucking" lighten up too. If you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all. This isn't a venue for your emotional outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk)-

It shouldn't be a venue for stupidity either, but that ship has sailed. This is the last comment I make on this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that's really nice An April Fool's "joke" that's sexist as a bonus. Go away. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the story is about these individuals fighting for feminism. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I made the mistake of reading Fox News first. Should've known better. Sorry, WaltCip. But still ... Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ec For what it's worth, I first saw mention of it in a Paris Lees article (here) and she's described it as a protest against slut-shaming so I don't know if it's entirely accurate to call the item itself sexist. But it certainly isn't ITN-worthy. GRAPPLE ^X 19:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm deeply offended by everything and everyone in this thread. Just an appalling outrage. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom