Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 235: Line 235:
*'''Wait''' until there is some actual legal action or a voluntary payment. Until then it is basically a publicity stunt. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' until there is some actual legal action or a voluntary payment. Until then it is basically a publicity stunt. --[[User:ThaddeusB|ThaddeusB]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusB|talk]]) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Any entity can demand whatever they wish; it only means something if they take action(a legal case, economic sanctions, etc.). If Greece does something to further their demand, OK. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Any entity can demand whatever they wish; it only means something if they take action(a legal case, economic sanctions, etc.). If Greece does something to further their demand, OK. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as toothless grandstanding. Didn't this already happen a few months ago, anyway?[[Special:Contributions/128.214.53.18|128.214.53.18]] ([[User talk:128.214.53.18|talk]]) 06:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


==== RD: Julie Wilson ====
==== RD: Julie Wilson ====

Revision as of 06:13, 8 April 2015

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Tropical Storm Trami on 21 October
Tropical Storm Trami

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

April 8

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

April 7

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

[RD] Stan Freberg

Article: Stan Freberg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Major influence in comedy and media, definitely would be considered a leader in this area from that time period. Inducted in the Nat'l Radio Hall of Fame. MASEM (t) 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] NCAA basketball

Proposed image
Article: 2015 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, Duke defeats Wisconsin to win the NCAA Men's Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In basketball, Duke defeats Wisconsin (MOP Tyus Jones pictured) to win the NCAA Men's Championship.
News source(s): USA TodayCBSESPN The Guardian Le Monde Der Spiegel
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Historically, the NCAA basketball tournament was a contentious nomination (roughly 50/50 support/oppose). It was posted some years and not posted others. Last year that changed due to a better explanation of why it is important and was posted with near unanimous support. Here is a recap of my argument:
The only true significance any sport has is that which people assign to it. In the United States, the NCAA tournament is the 3rd most watched sporting event - ahead of the NBA finals and 12 other US events we post. It terms of cultural impact, only the Super Bowl is obviously ahead of the tournament; it is on par with the World Series and the Kentucky Derby; and is miles ahead of things like the US Opens, the NASCAR points championship, and the New York Marathons. (By cultural impact I mean, is talked about/followed by people who rarely watch the sport or even sports in general.) We should strive to post the sporting events of the greatest cultural impact, not necessarily the "highest level" competitions (although often the two are the same). That is what the NCAA tournament is - an event of huge cultural significance. I realize America's interest in University-level sports is strange to most non-Americans, but I kindly ask you to try to see things from our prospective (and if you must complain about US-bias in sports, I suggest targeting a competition of much less importance to America than NCAA basketball.)

Additionally, two arguments sometimes offered in opposition are false. The tournament does lots of receive coverage outside the United States (as demonstrated in previous years, original reporting on it is published around the globe). Basketball is not a "minority sport" internationally - most estimates place it either second or third in global popularity. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • With respect - oppose per the reasons listed in the nomination. It was, currently is, and always will be a University-level sport - and to be clear, I would oppose posting the Boat Race events as well, but I understand that those universities are on somewhat of a different level.--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a university sport that gets the same or more attention than the NBA Finals. Given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, it is all but a professional sport. 331dot (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The fact that non-Americans really wish this wasn't a big deal doesn't have weight. It is the third biggest sporting event in the U.S. (after the Super Bowl and the NCAA Football Championship, another event people don't want to post). The measure should be "how much people care" and not "how much we want people to care". The championship game is almost always the most watched basketball game in the U.S., and will be again this year. "But it's a university sport, it SHOULDN'T be that popular" doesn't sound much like an actionable oppose here. --Jayron32 01:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Big news in the United States, and after all, this is English-language Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about English-speakers. AlexTiefling (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a majority of English-speakers in the world... Which would make it a big deal on English-language wiki. Your boat race is even less important.Correctron (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LoveToLondon: As stated above, objections related to something being from a particular country are not valid. This isn't being proposed as an ITNR event so that's not relevant; and if you feel something is missing from being posted or the ITNR list, please nominate it. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Something being only a national youth competition of a professional sports is a very valid objection. Please bring any non-US example where both the national adults and the national youth championship from the same country have been featured at ITN in the same year. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what I said was an invalid argument- but this isn't a "youth championship". 331dot (talk)
  • Interest in rugby and cricket very marginal in the U.S., Latin America and most of the Far East but doesn't prevent them from being posted. –HTD 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't claim it was the most watched event or even highly watched in Europe, but you said that there was "nearly no coverage outside that country" which isn't true. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also news in Australia. Clearly it is getting coverage elsewhere even at a minimal level. Respectfully, I really don't know how you can say it isn't. 331dot (talk)
  • I also don't know how you use the term "youth" but in the US it typically means people less than 18 years old, very few if any of which play college basketball. This isn't considered a "youth" tournament in the US. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NCAA isn't a "youth tournament". A "youth tournament" is a tournament, like your example, restricted to a certain age group. The NCAA is open to all ages. If a 30 year old player doesn't want to earn money but still play while having a "college education", it's perfectly legal for him to do so. Either way, if the UEFA Under-21 Championship is the third most popular tournament in Europe (I'd say the Europa League is more popular), then we could equate it to NCAA basketball. Is it? –HTD 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I used the page views for 2013, the last time both tournaments were held on the same year:
With all due respect, a comment calling NCAA sports "a youth tournament" is so woofully ignorant, that it can easily be ignored. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that despite all these years of discussing it, certain Brits simply don't understand its importance, because they don't have a comparable level. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The N.C.A.A does offer a youth clinic. It is for 8-14 year olds. Calling 18-22 year olds youths is simply absurd, as they can marry, drive cars, buy alcohol, and be drafted for the military. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as this is not something which has significance in the world of sport and doesn't seem to attract people globally. Most of the supporters above rely on facts that it's a major news in the United States, it has broken multiple television records or it's of particular relevance to the English-speaking world but avoid to mention how this game has made global impact for attracting people to practice college basketball on professional level. We comment on the same nomination every year but it continues to be practiced chiefly in the United States with not even a sign that one day it may be introduced and become popular in other countries. And for the matter of clarity, we don't oppose this because we have something against the United States, the American people or the American culture; it's simply because the world doesn't accept the "significance" of college basketball and remains out of its "impact". That's it. Some may argue that stories concerning a single country could have global impact to a lesser extent, but it's completely not true as we've posted such stories with much greater impact in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because some in the world don't see the impact, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are probably many things that are posted(as well as things on the ITNR list, as an example) that I don't get the impact for, but I still support their posting because I know that others see it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think it exists, then please prove it. College basketball is played for decades and we don't see even a tiny progress in its acceptance or its growing popularity outside the United States. And your argument that we should post this because of some precedent with other things is poorly a desparate evidence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, college basketball and volleyball is widely popular in the Philippines, but focus is on local teams, not on the US teams. I dunno about Canada, but it seems the US NCAA tournament is more popular than their own CIS. Some national basketball teams also have players from US (in cases of African national teams) and local (South Korea, of all places) college teams on their rosters. –HTD 11:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec) ThaddeusB explained it far better than I could. I wasn't suggesting precedent as an argument, simply making the point that every event has people who don't understand the impact or significance of it, and very little would be posted if that was a widespread justification. There is no requirement that this or any event be wildly popular outside where it comes from, and we in fact discourage such arguments on this page. I could probably pick out five ITNR events right now(just as examples) that get little coverage outside their home countries but are still posted. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • ThaddeusB did a great deal explaining the importance of a college sport in the United States and how it could become one of the most popular sporting events in the country but he didn't explain why the college basketball teams in other parts of the world are considered amateur teams that play for recreational purposes and why their games are not even covered in the media. We can make a nice parallel in looking for the reasons why the United States national basketball teams (both men's and women's) dominate over the rest of the world and the quality of college basketball might be even greater than the professional leagues in other countries. Nevertheless, we probably live in a world where people are not interested in further investing in basketball to bridge the gap between the United States and the rest of the world and that's why the popularity of college basketball will never grow on the same level. Some may say that we, the Europeans, and the people from other parts of the world are ethnocentric or have very low regard to the American culture but, trust me, it's just an inherent image that comes out because of the failure of college basketball to succeed in other countries and the lack of feasibility found for further investment in the sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason why college-level sports don't prosper in many places is because athletes who should be playing for a university would rather turn pro early and earn money, something that can't happen with the NBA still having their minimum age for draft eligibility. So in the case of the U.S., the only way in to the NBA is via the college game. This is not to say youth-level basketball isn't popular in many countries, they probably are, but the players are either riding the bench on "first squads" of the pro teams, or are playing in the under-X age squads of said pro teams. –HTD 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, the reason is historic rather than anything else. After all, college baseball and college hockey are relatively minor sports; player development in those sports happens primarily through junior leagues and professional minor leagues. Basketball and football were invented on U.S. University campuses by U.S. University students and/or professors, and were played by universities for DECADES before the pro game took off (college Basketball dates to the 1890s, the NBA was formed in the 1940s, for example). The best analogy I can give for their popularity is the difference between Rugby Union and Rugby League (an imperfect analogy, but close). Historically, Rugby Union developed first among amateur players (incedentally, on University campuses), and maintain a level of forced amateurism until only about 20 years ago. Being the older form of the sport, it historically had a greater following, even though it wasn't "professional". Rugby League has always been professional, and (except in certain geographic pockets) has always had less popularity than its older, more established, form. In the U.S., a similar relationship exists between the NCAA (amateur) basketball and the NBA (pro) basketball. --Jayron32 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think Kiril was wondering why college sports isn't that prominent elsewhere, not why college sports is prominent in the U.S. Elsewhere, people can rally behind a local team on the lower divisions. While there's some equivalent minor leagues in the US, like you said, due to historical factors, universities became the "rallying points" of locales which don't have a "top division" team in the U.S. –HTD 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, college basketball has made significant in roads globally. As recently as say 15 years ago, it was very rare for a team to have even a single foreign born player on its roster. Now, most teams have at least one and many teams have multiple foreign players. NCAA basketball is viewed as a great opportunity to get a free education or develop a player to play professionally later (depending on the level of athlete and country of origin), so athletes from all over the world come to play in the NCAAs. This doesn't happen to the same degree in other NCAA sports.
I realize this may not be exactly what you meant - you perhaps meant development of local teams with local players to be watched on TV. However, it still demonstrates an significant international impact of the game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement oppose Sigh, must we go through this again. No, of course we shouldn't post it. However you twist and turn it, it's only a university competition, with no major impact (cue all the 'explanations' on how I'm wrong). I think I might nominate the Cardff-Swansea Varsity later this month, see how that one goes down. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the "Cardiff-Swansea varsity" is, but if it is equivalent to this tournament which has more viewership than professional level basketball, and is all but professional basketball given recruiting, scholarships, and fan bases, I would be happy to support it. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in light of the huge interest and passion the tournament generates. Thaddeus is right - sport does not have inherent significance; it only has the significance we invest it with by following it and caring about it. The fact that it is a university tournament is neither here nor there when it comes to that significance. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A professional national league for adults where some of the regular season games are being watched live by up to half a billion people worldwide[3] was recently rejected at ITNR. How many people did watch this youth basketball game? LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now pissed that the push for the removal of the Irish hurling championship from the list was successful. Now I could only cite Gaelic football lol. Thank goodness the boat race -- which isn't even a championship (think of it as the British version of the annual Harvard vs. Yale football game, only if both schools got the best recruits in the country) -- made it. –HTD 11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Boat Race is the most well-known rowing event in the world, even the World Championships didn't make it to ITNR. Some of the people here also seem to fail to notice the difference between amateur sports and national youth championship of a professional sports. What amateur sports are relevant enough for ITN is a question completely separate from whether national youth championships should be posted at ITN. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the global audience of the NCAA tournament is significantly greater than the global audience of The Boat Race. For example, Canada is one of the top "secondary" markets for both and NCAA basketball wins that battle easily. From a UK perspective, basketball is a very minor sport, but in most of the world it is in the top 3 or so of popularity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the global audience of the boat race is somewhere in the range of 800 million, with 6 million in the UK (that means it needs 794 million eyeballs elsewhere to approach 800 million. I dunno how the math works but it's true!).
  • This isn't a garden variety "youth competition"; players are recruited, they are essentially paid by giving them scholarships, teams have large fan bases, and the event generates tens of millions in revenue and is more watched than the professional level of sports. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a onetime resident of Lexington, Kentucky, let me say that there already has been far too much wordage * expended on NCAA BKB. Sca (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong Support This is a significant sporting championship, around 40 million people watched this game. The entire tournament cost $1.9 billion in lost productivity [4]. It's unclear why this wouldn't be in the ITN. Shiny Son (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The measure here is how many people watch US college basketball worldwide. American football, for instance, despite being popular primarily in the US, is in ITN as a globally recognizable mainstay of local culture and national sport. I'm not sure whether college basketball rises to the same level among non-Americans. NBA finals and FIBA Basketball World Cup would suffice. Brandmeistertalk 13:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On what do you base the assertion that "the measure here is how many people watch" worldwide? If that's the measure, we could jettison probably 75% of ITNR and not post a great deal of ITN nominations. I don't think there is any requirement of a worldwide audience, just worldwide coverage, which this has. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the nomination, you can see the news reports from Le Monde, Der Spiegel and the Guardian. I'm sure you could find many other non-US news outlets covering this. It's basically a professional-level championship, despite the university-level players. Shiny Son (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Media may include this to diversify the content and boost readership. I think here editorial judgement should be exercised per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Brandmeistertalk 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or they might include it because they think their readers are interested in it. That's just speculation. There are many ways to rationalize and diminish the news coverage of any event. It's not being a newspaper to have a posting about a top watched sports event with international players that people in many places are interested in or want to learn more about. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Division I (NCAA)#Overview lists a total of eight sports for men. Picking basketball when it's already postable in at least two kinds of competitions, one of which is American (NBA) is dubious. Brandmeistertalk 14:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying every NCAA sport should be posted; basketball and football are different from other NCAA sports in that regard; they both get far more coverage and attention than the other sports. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be blown out of proportions. Will Duke University be remembered for fostering a college basketball champion in the long run? How all those teams would perform against national basketball teams? Like many other sports, basketball ultimately comes down to international competition. Media are naturally alowed not to ask such questions. Brandmeistertalk 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duke University has already been known for a long time for its excellent basketball program ever since Mike Krzyzewski took over. International competition in basketball is actually hotly contested, but it's the US that always wins, so it's not that popular when a full-strength US team is playing. That's why European championships are more hotly contested than things such as the FIBA World Cup because you can't be sure on who'd win. The Olympics are a different matter because the best players, who are too tired to play after the 82-game NBA regular season to play in continental and world championships, actually show up. Incidentally, two of the best five players in the 2012 FIBA Under-17 World Championship are from Duke, and another one is the "most outstanding player" in this tournament. Coincidentally, the coach of the senior US team is Krzyzewski who fixed things up in the senior national team and only has one competitive loss to his name in nine years. –HTD 16:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Yes, the highest prize in international basketball, the one players actually care about, isn't on ITNR, and is the toughest sell here on ITN. The Boat Race is a lot easier to post than the Olympics. –HTD 16:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - last year's tournament (this year's figures aren't available yet), was watched by ~102 million people on TV across 165 countries and broadcast in 5 languages. An additional 10 million people streamed at least one game online. [5]. Incidentally, 100 million was the figured offered as to The Boat Race's global audience when it was added to ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So this whole tournament had only a fourth of the number of viewers that each of El Clásico games has (there are at least 2 El Clásico per season, often 4 or more). The Boat Race is the most important event in its sports, the NCAA championship is only the second-ranking national championship in one country. LoveToLondon (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't understand where this La Liga comparison is coming from. ITN posted La Liga last year without much issue. ITN also posted Copa del Rey last year(?) too (with some controversy). Last year's NCAA basketball championship was posted quickly (HAHA). This isn't an ITNR nomination. Both NCAA basketball and La Liga aren't in ITNR, and were posted last year despite not being listed there. –HTD 14:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • {ec) I think Kentucky fans might disagree with you about "importance". There are many ways to judge importance; ThaddeusB explains above why this is important. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The Boat Race is most certainly not the highest level of rowing. The sport does have world championships, you know. Most other sports we list are also not the highest level as regional and international tournaments/world championships exist. If you only posted the true highest level of any given sport, that would mean World Cup only for football. No one would make such a argument for football, which is why we list 9 football events on ITNR (and often post Bundesliga & la Liga as well, making 11 total). Basketball, arguably the world's second most popular sport, lists three: FIBA World Championships, NBA Finals, and Euroleague. NCAA basketball has often been posted, making 4 possible. NCAA basketball is more popular in the US than any of the others, and likely more popular globally than all but the NBA (these things are really hard to compare precisely as audience figures are not readily available). In terms of cultural impact, there is no comparison - NCAA basketball wins easily. In terms of quality of play, NCAA basketball perhaps outranks Euroleague despite one being professional and the other nominally amateur. Several sports less popular than basketball globally have more than 4 ITNR listings (Golf - 6, Horse Racing - 5, Marathon Running - 4, Motorsport - 8, Rugby - 5). Several sports have multiple US entries, so that is not a disqualifier either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's safe to say that the Euroleague has overtook the NCAA in quality of play ever since the 1988 Olympics where grown men from the Soviet Union beat US college kids. From 1936 to 1976, US college kids beat the grown men from other countries all of the time except for that crazy game in Munich (Americans boycotted in 1980 (Soviets lost lol), and the Americans won in home court in 1984). In a random preseason game where both teams are sleepwalking throughout the game, a Euroleague champion can beat the NBA champion. –HTD 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could be right - it is very hard to say for sure. Certainly, the average Euroleague team is better than the average NCAA team - there are 350 NCAA teams after all. I'm not so sure the top NCAA teams aren't better than the top Euroleague teams though. My counter-argument would be from top teams, 2-4 starters go to the NBA and the remaining starters and top reserves end up split between European leagues and the D-league (minus the few who choose not to pursue the sport further when they realize they won't make the NBA). That implies the best college teams are somewhere between a bad NBA team and a good Euroleague team. Granted, all those players continue to develop after they leave college, and the Euro teams also attract good players who never went to American college, so the Euroleague team is obviously better than the comparison implies. Overall, I would say there isn't a huge difference between an average Euroleague team and a top 20 NCAA team. NCAA teams are allowed an overseas preseason trip every four years, so I could look up how NCAA teams have done in exhibitions against Euroleague teams, but I don't put much stock in such "sleep walking" matches as you call them. A team of college All-Stars even beat the original Dream Team in exhibition game. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Except, these mostly aren't agency reprints, but rather original reporting (or at least original writing). Almost no sport gets front page coverage outside its local market. Are you suggesting we remove every sport outside of the Olympics and World Cup? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are going to have to qualify that comment. I meant the actual front page of general interest newspapers. In that sense, the NBA rarely is front page even in the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We all love pics, but I'd rather prefer a picture of Jones in a basketball uniform than the suggested one. –HTD 16:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muboshgu and I are hardly the only two supporters, active or otherwise. It's not just about number of supporters, but strength of arguments; virtually every oppose argument has been refuted. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure who here is shouting; I'm not; nor is my goal to get you to "give up". My goal is to present and support logical, rational arguments. In this case, most of the oppose arguments have been demonstrated to not be accurate. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some very active opposers like you LoveToLondon. That is not the same as non-consensus. And with all due respect, someone with a very strong opinion and ~45 edits before today is hardly in a position to judge consensus accurately. Let's leave that to an uninvolved admin. Incidentally, the !vote count is actually 13-5 as my nomination is an implied support. 72% support almost always represents consensus; there would have to be a wide gap in the strength of arguments to override that level of support.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support absolutely nobody in the US cares about stuff like Formula 1, WRC, The Boat Race. The only sport event that Americans care about are the World Cup, Olympics and the Euro Championship. However, the former get posted even though a giant chunk of wiki readers don't care. I would rather have another sport event posted with 10+ live viewers than post another 20-something death terrorist bombing. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a huge institution with multi-billion dollar broadcasting rights, and coverage in Time Magazine, the International Business Times, and The Wall Street Journal, the highest overnight viewership rating in 18 years and a record 3.4 million live-streaming viewers. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Three quarters of the comments have been supportive, and many of them make an argument or offer evidence of large scale significance. The balance of the arguments at this time favors posting. The article itself is substantial and appears to be of reasonable quality. I didn't do anything with the player award or the picture, as that was only recently added to the nomination and hasn't been discussed much. In particular, the player photo is not of great quality (looking away from the camera with a shadow running across his face.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—— * This discussion, including hidden portion below, totals more than 7,000 words. Sca (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) ——[reply]
Collapsing tangential discussion; discussions about ITN's purpose are better situated at WT:ITN than in individual nominations. SpencerT♦C 19:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose – Clear attempt at framing Wikipedia as an encylopaedia written from the hyper-masculine gaze. There is no justification for the inclusion of insignificant people running about in a room on the front page of the encylopaedia, especially given the very significant world events that are presently occurring and not listed. No lasting impact. RGloucester 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you opposed to posting any and all sports, then? I don't think Lucas Oil Stadium with tens of thousands of people in it is a "room". 331dot (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well and truly opposed. Eliminate them. This is clear WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. RGloucester 17:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I praise you for your consistency, but that is a completely unrealistic expectation. There are other users here besides yourself all with their own visions. Systemic bias does not mean American items or even just sports items should be excluded from ITN. What you seem to want is a much larger battle than this one issue. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament generates like a billion dollars for the NCAA itself. Not bad for an "amateur" sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More systemic bias. You seem to have spoken as if money has something to do with encyclopaedic significance. No sport should be appearing here. RGloucester 19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Money does have something to do with significance. It represent the economic and even cultural impacts of the sport. It's not called 'March Madness' for nothing. I understand that your view(no sports here) is sincerely held but the chance that you will gain consensus for that seems remote. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "hyper-masculine gaze"? RGIII, are you implying basketball fans are on the down-low? And how much did you spend to acquire "hyper-masculine gaze"? In the US, it costs at least four years and a couple hundred-thousand dollars. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that "no sport" should be ITN is a pretty strongly biased comment in itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shan't have consensus, I'm aware. I'm also aware that this is pure old boy's club systemic bias. Boat races, cricket matches, basketted balls, &c. No significance, and merely meant to promote the dominant societal gaze, which privileges such fripperies as worth more WP:WEIGHT than war and famine in wherever. RGloucester 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what is insignificant to you must of course be insignificant to everyone else? People also want to read about things other than death, disaster, destruction, and war now and then. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You speak as if there were such a thing as the individual. I disagree. There is one human consciousness, one meaning. The insignificance of these trifles is clear. People may well want to read about such events, but they should do so in the appropriate venue, preferably in a shadowy back-alley where no one else is required to view their seditious activities. This is an encylopaedia. We must be upright and proper. RGloucester 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we're in an old boy's club? Your philosophical beliefs are just that, your own, and not shared by everyone else- and the fact that you hold them doesn't give you any more weight than any other person here. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "my own", as I have no property. We are all proper to God and to each-other. Everything we are and ever will be is by default shared amongst the collective humanity. When I write "you", I mean it in the plural sense. I hail humanity. There is no "you" in the singular. Regardless, this is a digression. The matter of significance is clear. Oppose inclusion. RGloucester 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 6

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports

Greece demands World War II reparations from Germany

Article: German reparations for World War II#Greece (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Greece demands nearly €279 billion ($305 billion) from Germany in reparations for World War II. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Russia Today BBC Fox News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Large amount of money, coverage around the world. This is the first time these claims have been quantified by Greece. [6] Everymorning talk 14:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Julie Wilson

Article: Julie Wilson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Billboard
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Described by her NY Times obit as a "revered nightclub performer and actress widely regarded as the queen of cabaret". Seems to indicate importance in her field. Everymorning talk 02:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Dave Ulliott

Article: Dave Ulliott (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TI Mirror
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: an English professional gambler and poker player, well known poker player of the country as well as a world title holder. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ignoring the issue about poker being a major sport, I'm not seeing this guy as a leader in the field - he won a few but doesn't seem to have a long-running success outside a personality. But I also do worry that we'd include poker as a sport and thus a field of interest for ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on both article quality and notability. Poker isn't a sport. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Poker doesn't have to be a sport to be put on ITN, but I don't think this person was "very important" to the field. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not seemingly that important to the game of poker. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good quality article, well referenced, worth highlighting on the main page. Very well known poker player. --Jayron32 13:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is in excellent shape - reading over his article has me ambivalent about his notability. One of the top ten poker players according to PokerPlayer Magazine? I do not see any criteria to easily judge notability for poker players. Challenger l (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I went back and forth between weak support and weak oppose. I do remember seeing the Devilfish long long ago when I used to watch poker on TV during the poker boom, and he was often one of the featured players. I'd say he was at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- Devilfish may not have been among the best poker players in the world, but with all the TV coverage he got he was probably among the most well-known at his peak, which was also poker's peak. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 5

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • Devastating floods in northern Chile leave at least 25 dead and more than 100 missing. (CNN)
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology

RD: Fredric Brandt

Article: Fredric Brandt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): E! Online CBS News Miami Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Well-known celebrity dermatologist. Some measure of controversy surrounding his death (he had recently been parodied on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, which some reports suggest was a factor in his depression). Kudzu1 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both on importance and articl quality. Article really needs significant expansion to be a ITN and the CN tags removed. But more importantly, I don't see him being a leader in the field (if he had invented the botox practice that might be one thing but just being a practitioner on it to rich clients, not really). The death by apparent hanging is tragic, but this is not like Williams where the person was a household name across most of the world; this person is far too niche for RD. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Being famous doesn't equate to "very important" to the field. In the case of a doctor I would personally look for notable medical advancements or procedures attributed to them. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose barely notable and article is just barely above stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One of the physicians that made botox into a thing. The article looks like it would fit on a business card - very badly needs expansion before consideration for RD. Challenger l (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose death update is insufficient, not mentioning recent TV parody of him. Frankly, this would be a much smaller story in the press if it weren't for Martin Short, and that is not a basis for an ITN listing. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women's World Chess Championship

Proposed image
Article: Women's World Chess Championship 2015 (knock-out) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukraine's Mariya Muzychuk (pictured) defeats Russia's Natalia Pogonina to win the Women's World Chess Championship. (Post)
News source(s): Ukraine Today
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looks like Women's Championship isn't ITNR, but still... Brandmeistertalk 08:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry, people. We could replace that cricket blurb with a tournament that is not in the highest level of its sport and is 100% amateur tomorrow. ***winks*** –HTD 13:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been nearly 12 hours, so please could you check, mate...? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now hidden the unreferenced part and added FIDE-sourced final game summary, tenses appear to be fixed. Marking as ready, blurb may be modified. Brandmeistertalk 20:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing a final game summary. I am a little uneasy with simply hiding the (short) summary of the rest of the tournament though. Surely this can be referenced without much effort, which would be far preferable to pretended like the other 95% of the tournament before the final didn't exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- This year's tournament, as the women's world championship often is, was not worthy of being called a world championship. Just because it was declared by FIDE to be the world championship does not mean it was worthy of that status. Hou Yifan and Judit Polgar (the two best women in the world by a very large margin) did not enter, and the format was a very silly straight knockout style tournament. Also this is NOT ITN/R, only the World Chess Championship is and that refers to the very specific event that crowns the "world chess champion". Chess is not like other sports where there is a men's and women's championship, in chess there is an open championship and an unrelated women's championship, and women are free to enter the open championship. A better analogy would be poker, where the winner of the WSOP Women's only event would never be posted because can and sometimes do succeed in the actual main event. See Judith Polgar for example Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinion or fact? I wonder.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facts. Here's an article for more information.[7] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hou Yifan effectively declined participation voluntarily, not because of opposing, losing, prohibition or something. And FIDE is known for similar funny incidents, like back in 1993 when Kasparov broke away from FIDE, leading to the existence of two World Chess Championships, so I'd say it's not something extraordinary. Regardless of the format, this is still the top level of women's chess. The format of some other top-tier sports tournaments also changed. Brandmeistertalk 21:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Steve Rickard

Article: Steve Rickard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZH
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not even rated in the top three of wrestlers from New Zealand, so not convinced he meets the RD criteria. Article is okay, but also contains some unreferenced claims which would need to be sorted before posting if necessary. As an aside, it would be helpful for RD nominations to have some kind of intro blurb to explain why we should consider each individual for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the article seems thin on citations. He seems notable more as a wrestling promoter than as a wrestler. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending article improvements: There's a lot of uncited information in the article, but he's a former champion wrestler and television producer and he certainly appears to have been a notable figure in his field. But there needs to be some work done on citations before the page is RD-ready. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Really not seeing a level of importance here to meet RD. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large Hadron Collider restarted

Proposed image
Articles: Large Hadron Collider (talk · history · tag) and CERN (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European Organization for Nuclear Research restarts the Large Hadron Collider after a two-year modernization pause. (Post)
Credits:
 Jenda H. (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Brazilian drought

Article: 2015 Brazilian drought (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): npr, theguardian
Credits:
 ArionEstar (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is there a specific event regarding this drought that is motivating your nomination? We usually don't have long-term issues like this posted without some sort of specific event to hang our hat on, in terms of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here. ArionEstar (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to clarify that for me as I cannot read Portuguese. I accidentally glossed over the Ongoing tag before so that does make a bit more sense to me, but Ongoing is meant for events that might have incremental developments that might not warrant postings on their own but do when all added together. Is there something like what California just did(with the water use reduction order)? 331dot (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Russia annoyed with Saudi Arabia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: [[Stuff in Yemen

  • Russia wants Saudi Arabia to stop attacking [1][2](Yahoo!News)
  • Russia has convened UN Security Council [3][4]
  • Russia told Saudi Arabia to start an embargo on arms in Yemen, but Saudis refused (Reuters) [5][6]
  • Red Cross also really wants Saudi Arabia to pause the fighting so they can deliver goodies to victims (Reuters)(CNN)(BBC)(Al Jazeera)
  • Saudi Arabia has also been using "special forces" [7][8][9]
  • Saudi Arabia has donated a lot of weapons, including RPGs, to people in Yemen (Globe&Mail)(Reuters)]] ([[Talk:Stuff in Yemen
  • Russia wants Saudi Arabia to stop attacking [1][2](Yahoo!News)
  • Russia has convened UN Security Council [3][4]
  • Russia told Saudi Arabia to start an embargo on arms in Yemen, but Saudis refused (Reuters) [5][6]
  • Red Cross also really wants Saudi Arabia to pause the fighting so they can deliver goodies to victims (Reuters)(CNN)(BBC)(Al Jazeera)
  • Saudi Arabia has also been using "special forces" [7][8][9]
  • Saudi Arabia has donated a lot of weapons, including RPGs, to people in Yemen (Globe&Mail)(Reuters)|talk]] · [{{fullurl:Stuff in Yemen
  • Russia wants Saudi Arabia to stop attacking [1][2](Yahoo!News)
  • Russia has convened UN Security Council [3][4]
  • Russia told Saudi Arabia to start an embargo on arms in Yemen, but Saudis refused (Reuters) [5][6]
  • Red Cross also really wants Saudi Arabia to pause the fighting so they can deliver goodies to victims (Reuters)(CNN)(BBC)(Al Jazeera)
  • Saudi Arabia has also been using "special forces" [7][8][9]
  • Saudi Arabia has donated a lot of weapons, including RPGs, to people in Yemen (Globe&Mail)(Reuters)|action=history}} history] · [{{fullurl:Talk:Stuff in Yemen
  • Russia wants Saudi Arabia to stop attacking [1][2](Yahoo!News)
  • Russia has convened UN Security Council [3][4]
  • Russia told Saudi Arabia to start an embargo on arms in Yemen, but Saudis refused (Reuters) [5][6]
  • Red Cross also really wants Saudi Arabia to pause the fighting so they can deliver goodies to victims (Reuters)(CNN)(BBC)(Al Jazeera)
  • Saudi Arabia has also been using "special forces" [7][8][9]
  • Saudi Arabia has donated a lot of weapons, including RPGs, to people in Yemen (Globe&Mail)(Reuters)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/note&preloadtitle=In+the+news+nomination&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=%5B%5B2015+military+intervention+in+Yemen%7CStuff+in+Yemen%5D%5D%0A%2A+Russia+wants+Saudi+Arabia+to+stop+attacking+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Frussias-putin-iran-immediate-ceasefire-needed-yemen-163620870.html+%28Yahoo%21News%29%5D%0A%2A+Russia+has+convened+UN+Security+Council+%0A%2A+Russia+told+Saudi+Arabia+to+start+an+embargo+on+arms+in+Yemen%2C+but+Saudis+refused+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fuk.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2015%2F04%2F04%2Fuk-yemen-security-russia-idUKKBN0MV0JU20150404+%28Reuters%29%5D+%0A%2A+Red+Cross+also+really+wants+Saudi+Arabia+to+pause+the+fighting+so+they+can+deliver+goodies+to+victims+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2015%2F04%2F04%2Fus-yemen-security-idUSKBN0MV0NH20150404+%28Reuters%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2015%2F04%2F04%2Fmiddleeast%2Fyemen-saudi-forces-houthis-al-qaeda%2F+%28CNN%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-32187861+%28BBC%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2015%2F04%2Fyemen-air-strikes-continue-calls-halt-150404215512990.html+%28Al+Jazeera%29%5D%0A%2A+Saudi+Arabia+has+also+been+using+%22special+forces%22+%0A%2A+Saudi+Arabia+has+donated+a+lot+of+weapons%2C+including+RPGs%2C+to+people+in+Yemen+%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fsaudis-airdrop-arms-to-aden-defenders-houthis-pull-back%2Farticle23789084%2F+%28Globe%26Mail%29%5D%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2015%2F04%2F03%2Fus-yemen-security-aden-houthis-idUSKBN0MU0KU20150403+%28Reuters%29%5D}} tag])
    Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)

LeisureContributer (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 4

Accidents and disasters
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Sports

[Posted] RD: Elmer Lach

Proposed image
Article: Elmer Lach (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC CTV
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former NHL MVP, twice leading the league in points. Member of the Hockey Hall of Fame who retired as the league's all-time leading scorer. Teemu08 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose seems like a reasonable claim to RD notability, but the article is really weak for someone claimed to be a "great". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is sufficient, greatest scorer of his generation. Member of what is widely considered the greatest line in Hockey history, the Punch line with Toe Blake and Maurice Richard, last living member of that line. --Jayron32 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: He seems notable, but the article is surprisingly skimpy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lach is notable in his field. Article could use a few tweaks. I'll see what I can do. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits as important to ice hockey, upon adequate improvements to the article (it seems almost there, if not already). 331dot (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we simply cannot regress on posting club legends who have been active more than 60 years ago with very limited significance in their field. I can name at least 100 ice hockey players with bigger achievements in their playing career from the last 50 years. The fact he was voted the 68th greatest ice hockey player of all time only supports the notion that he wasn't really on the top. Maybe he was notable in the history of Montreal Canadiens but definitely not in the history of ice hockey. I also find that many media omit to even post a brief obituary about himself.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that his notability came about many years ago doesn't detract from it. You're essentially saying that because he lived a long time beyond when he was notable that he isn't anymore. Being the 68th greatest player out of the thousands of professional players there has been seems to qualify for "very important". 331dot (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - article is much improved (good work) and consensus on notability is in favor of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Posting Meh The 68th best rock song by one list is Nazareth's "Hair of the Dog" which I have heard three times in five decades, and the movie Amélie which was as overrated as one can get (it's all red, yellow and green!). Not requesting a pull, but suggest no precedent should be established here as was done with that 30-something Glee high-school student. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that sort of assessment is that he was (by one quantitative statistical measure), the #1 player when he retired, as in he was the all-time scoring leader, a pretty good measure of success and importance to the sport. To retire the best ever is a pretty good measure of importance. It's been over 50 years since he retired, the season is also much longer today. For most of his career the season was 50-70 games long; players since the 1970s have played 80 game seasons; the league had six teams when he played, the league today has 30 teams. It is unsurprising that players have surpassed him statistically. For comparison, consider contemporaries of his from other American sports. In 1950 in the NFL, Bobby Layne led the NFL in passing with 2323 yards and Marion Motley led the league in rushing with 810 yards. They are both hall-of-fame NFL players, considered the best at their position during that time period. Those numbers would make them among the worst at their positions in today's league. The NHL is no different. Lach was the best player when he retired, and for that reason he's easily worth while for RD. --Jayron32 01:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bow to your obvious expertise, because the only thing I know about the game is that it's played on the ice by people with missing teeth. My concern is that it is difficult to compare records over such a long period, for the reasons Stephen Jay Gould gives in his baseball essay, "Why No One Hits .400 Any More". μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015 lunar eclipse

Article: April 2015 lunar eclipse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The shortest lunar eclipse of the 21st century occurs, with a total eclipse visible in the western third of the United States. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Time USA Today
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Seems like a significant astronomical event, and has received a substantial amount of news coverage. Everymorning talk 14:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

Accidents and disasters
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Miscellaneous news
Health and Medicine
Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Sarah Brady

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Sarah Brady (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, New York Times, NBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Was described, along with her husband, as "perhaps the most visible champions of gun control in the United States". Everymorning talk 18:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Closed] RD: Hayley Okines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Hayley Okines (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News USA Today BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Seems to have been important in the field of raising awareness of rare diseases. CBS says "Hayley's impact stretched a long way from the town in East Sussex, England, where she was born..." Everymorning talk 18:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: Don't see how she's independently notable. She achieved minor celebrity because she was terminally ill, and now she has died. It's a sad story, and we can all hope some good will come of it, but I don't really think she meets RD criteria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Much like the 117 year old woman, she doesn't meet the death criteria for any accomplishments in any field. Posting this for the purpose of "raising awareness of rare diseases" is advocacy that Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this tugs at your heart because she's a child with a terminal illness, but she would not have been the subject of media attention without the disease had she just been an advocate. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I would like to support but I must agree that raising awareness is not a field. Is there some tangible, notable accomplishment that can be traced to her work? 331dot (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I too am sympathetic but this doesn't meet our established criteria for an ITN notice. Suggest we close this, with all respects to the nominator, as supporting !votes are unlikely to carry the nomination. Thanks though. Jusdafax 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Added to Ongoing] Yemeni prisoners released

Article: Al Mukalla (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Yemen, Al-Qaeda fighters attack a prison in Al Mukalla, freeing as many as 270 prisoners. (Post)
News source(s): CNN The Telegraph ITV News ABC
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Seems notable as a lot of prisoners escaped and/or were let free. Andise1 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm pretty sure there's a rough consensus to add the Yemen conflict to ongoing as soon as the last such blurb would roll off the ITN ticker. I don't really see this as a major development, and think rather than posting yet another blurb, we use this as more evidence for an Ongoing: link instead. --Jayron32 04:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, (again) support ongoing: Per Jayron32, my understanding is that one of the ongoing Yemen pages (as a major contributor to the content, and original creator of many of the topic articles, it roughly breaks down as Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) being the umbrella for events since the start of the Arab Spring, Aftermath of the 2014–15 Yemeni coup d'état being the umbrella for the fallout from the fall of the government, Southern Yemen offensive (2015) covering the military campaign being waged by the rebels/Sana'a government against the loyalists/Aden government, and 2015 military intervention in Yemen covering the military campaign being conducted by the Arab coalition in support of Aden) should be listed as ongoing. I'm not sure why it hasn't been done. But I don't think this prison break is independently notable enough for ITN, regardless of whether the Yemen conflict has ongoing status or not (and it should). -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "War in Yemen" was supposed to be added back to Ongoing after the last blurb was off of the template. Please put it back ASAP. Mamyles (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yemini crisis re-posted to ongoing. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Robert H. Schuller

Article: Robert H. Schuller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT WP CNN
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
 -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 03:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "top of the field" means only one person. Multiple people can be in the top of a field. Mamyles (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) RD is not just for those at the top of their field, the criteria says "very important" to their field. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose citations required, see article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - With all due respect to TRM, who tagged the "Writings" section well down in the article which has a dead link, I think this is postable to ITN now. He's a big name, he's all over the news, and the article is decent. Run it, or fix it and run it. Jusdafax 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, considering an item I posted was pulled because of perceived lack of sources and a general miscomprehension of ITN guidelines just this morning, I can't see the difference. He's certainly not all over the news where I live, the article is average. I vote for your second suggestion, fix it and run it. So please, fix it, then we can run it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Suggest tag be pulled, and item posted. Jusdafax 21:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, although you could have formatted the references appropriately. There are also [citation needed] tags that could be addressed. Either way, you're one of very few who care enough to actively do something about a nomination they support, for which I applaud you. It's still not decent enough for me, but that certainly won't stop it being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I fixed all of the cn tags; easily done. If I've missed any, let me know. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work again. As I said before, it'd be good if the references could be properly formatted, and it seems we have a large reliance on a primary source, i.e. Schuller's blog. But I'm sure that won't stop this being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be a lot less stringent than we are. And not in a good way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, rather than being stringent, you think the Germans are astringent? :) μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program

Article: Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program#Following negotiations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A preliminary deal is reached between Iran and six other countries regarding Iran's nuclear program. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Atlantic, The New York Times
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This has been generating a lot of headlines for days prior to this, and now we have an agreement that is the lead story on the BBC and has been described by Obama as a "historic understanding". Seems significant. Everymorning talk 21:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a treaty so the US Senate can't "veto" it, but there may be parts that require their approval(like lifting sanctions). 331dot (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amend my comment to "undermines it", as that is the ongoing practice of this Congress. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots15:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we add wikilink to Iran, and also link the "six other countries" to P5+1? They are the countries that negotiate with Iran, and it would answer if a reader is wondering what those six countries are. HaEr48 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Re-posted] RD: Manoel de Oliveira

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Manoel de Oliveira (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oldest active film director, received many awards. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up a non-circular source for that many short films and documentaries, likely with non-English sources, could be quite a task. The section could be hidden, or the linked works moved into the feature films section, renamed to simply "filmography" advising that works not identified as shorts or documentaries are feature films. Or the section could be "selected shorts and documentarries" with the non-linked works removed. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good temp fix. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
70 references throughout. Perhaps tag those specific phrases within the article you have issues with? Or else stick to objecting to articles which have fewer than 71 references? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrous comment. Objecting about poor sourcing is absurd? And you were the one who told me to "grow up".--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has an orange tagged section with a list of works mostly without verification of attribution. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and agree this is ready to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That articles with orange tagged sections are okay is a new policy? I've removed all the unsourced material. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that question directed at me? If so, then check the guidance, there is no "policy" regarding ITN. If not, disregard this response. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with removing that much material from an article, whose accuracy has not been genuinely questioned. Unless anyone raises an actual issue about the remove material, I intend to restore it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you do restore it. Times have changed here, we seek very little verification for certain sections of ITN items. The precedent has been set and followed several times. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Pull and trout TRM for WP:POINT violation. He's using the word precedent to mean "someone did something I didn't like before, so that means i have to do the wrong thing too to make a point". No. The article in question has valid quality issues that should keep it off the main page. The significance of a news item is of secondary importance to the purpose of ITN; the primary purpose is to highlight quality Wikipedia content. Yes, occasionally in the past mistakes have been made in this direction. That does NOT mean that we abandon the notion that the main page should feature content we are proud of. If the article has quality problems, we need to fix those first before posting. TRM posting this, based on prior expressed opinions on this very issue, tastes bad. Past mistakes do not make precedent. We should pull this for a short while till we can clean up the article. Wikipedia should have a good article about this person to put on the main page. It doesn't yet. We should fix that and then post this. --Jayron32 01:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled - Shouldn't have been posted with an orange tag, and shouldn't have been posted by The Rambling Man, since he had already supported it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but needs fixing - This guy is certainly at the top of his field and is in fact INT RD notable, but the article needs more sourcing! Add more sources in his intro, career section and awards section and this should be a go. Full Support now --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original orange tag was for a section that listed some 20 films to his credit with no ref or link to the primary source. That was fixed. I have removed the page level tag; if more references are wanted then the specific claims should get {{cn}} tags. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few tweaks myself, including removing an inconsequential (and uncited) quote. It's pretty close. However, I had to add reference tag to the "Personal Life" section. The first paragraph on his family (wife, children, details on marriages to and births thereof) is entirely unreferenced. Many missing refs could be easily forgiven, but something like this has serious WP:BLP implications. If we're going to say he's married to so-and-so, or that such-and-such is his children, those are living people, and we'd better get that right. If someone could find the sources and fix that one problem, I'd have no objections to this being reposted. Thanks to Medeis for the work already done. This is almost ready, but that one needed fix is pretty glaring, and should be addressed before posting. --Jayron32 05:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    His NY Times obit confirms the names of his wife and three of his children (not sure what happened to the second daughter) while Variety confirms the grandchildren named in the article. It's late, I'm tired and it takes longer to edit articles properly on my tablet here, so if of someone could add those citations and look for a source for the "missing" daughter, that would be great. --ThylekShran (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, and I found a Portuguese-language source naming his children and giving their birth years: [8] Good thing, too, because two of the children were named incorrectly in the article, according to this obituary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Now that the issues have been fixed, can someone add him back to RD now? --ThylekShran (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-posted. Some of you need to read the ITN criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who posted it in the first place. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correctly per the criteria. Which is what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're complaining because some people added references to an article and improved it in other ways? Right. --Jayron32 00:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're mistaken, not for the first time I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Kenya attacks

Article: 2015 Garissa University College attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Al-Shabaab gunmen attack Garissa University College in Kenya, killing at least 15 people and wounding 65. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 120.62.30.7 (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More casualties than Copenhagen. Not to forget those with at LEAST short-term mental health issues. 120.62.30.7 (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

Disasters and accidents

Health

Law and crime

Politics and elections
  • Thailand's military junta repeals martial law in favor of an imposed constitutional provision that allows the leader of the government to make extra-constitutional orders. (AP)

[Update] Sinking of the Dal'nij Vostok

Article: Sinking of the Dal'nij Vostok (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Dal'nij Vostok, a Russian fishing trawler, sinks, killing at least fifty-six people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Russian fishing trawler, Dal'nij Vostok, ("The Far East") sinks, killing at least fifty-six people.
News source(s): Reuters Sydney Morning-Herald Russia Today
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Very large death toll, lots of news coverage. Everymorning talk 11:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on the reaction (there's a criminal investigation), specified the numbers and nationalities of the crew, identified the owner and home port and added the Russian name and its translation, going from 3.4 to 4.6kb. Jayron32, the article has about doubled in size, do you now support posting? μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trending towards neutral, but still oppose. The article is very sparse. If this is literally ALL that can be said about the event, then maybe it isn't notable enough for ITN recognition? If there is more that can be said, it should be in the article. But if this is as comprehensive an article as we can create about the event, it isn't being covered in enough detail in mainstream sources for us to consider it significant enough for ITN. Either way, this shouldn't be posted: either the article is inadequate or the subject isn't significant enough. --Jayron32 02:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, I think you and Masem with his 1500 word requirement are ignoring the set guidelines at Wikipedia:In_the_news, specifically: In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. An example of the minimum required update for a new article is Fuzhou derailment at the time of its posting. You will notice this article is the same size as the Fuzhou article, has one more source, and the event is both presumed to be criminal and involves an international crew and audience. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I'm just not ignoring the requirements of WP:CONSENSUS which means we talk it out, and discuss every event and arrive at a reasonable consensus over what is, and is not, worth posting at the time it is nominated. If consensus says this can be posted, I won't demand anything change about that posting. But my objection will stand until the problems are fixed. This isn't a competition I need to win. Sometimes I'm on the wrong side of consensus, it's no big deal to me. If it gets posted, it gets posted. I still don't think it should be right now in the state it is in. I should note that WP:WEFOLLOWEVERYRULEEXACTLYASWRITTENESPECIALLYWHENITFAVORSMYOPINION has yet to be created as yet, but you let me know how that goes. --Jayron32 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you have not specifically identified any problems. If I may, I suggest you take a look at the article now. I know what it looked like when you made your original comment, and it far surpasses that. (Not that surpassing that stage would have been difficult.) μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have specifically identified problems. The problem is that the article content is insufficient for one of either of two reasons 1) it does not sufficiently represent what existing news outlets have reported on the incident or 2) that the incident is not being sufficiently covered to warrant ITN attention. 1) is certainly fixable: if news outlets have reported more than the article is covering, then simply adding those facts to the article would be actioable and an easy fix. 2) cannot be fixed, but it just means the subject isn't worthy of ITN in the first place. Either expand the article with more facts from existing coverage, or if the facts don't exist, then my objection on the lack of significance stands: if no one else has more to say on this matter it isn't worth posting. --Jayron32 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently at 9kb of text, it has a description of the boat, its owner, the crew, the circumstances of the sinking, the various different theories as to the cause, that there's a criminal investigation, comparison with other Russian maritime disasters, the extent of rescue efforts by officials and nearby ships, and even international reaction. I seriously can't think of what else could be added to the text at this point. If there's anything obvious that should be added, that's fine but "if you can't expand this even further than what's currently known" is an impossible barrier to posting any nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change vote to Neutral. Since my last comment at 3:32, Medeis and other have made some marginal expansions to the article. Incrementally the article is getting better. I hope that changing my vote doesn't cause such continued improvements to be abandoned, as though ITN was some final prize that caused Wikipedia articles to stop being improved. But edits in the last 60 minutes or so, which were not there as of my last assessment immediately above, show a continued effort to add text to this still sparse article, and it's gotten past the point where a formal oppose is necessary. It is by no means a fantastic article, and is still quite sparse, but given the trend I will lift my outright opposition in the good faith that this will continue to grow (provided that information exists which could be used to grow the article. I'm not sold that it does so exist. But whatever). --Jayron32 04:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of until the prosecutors speak or the missing are declared presumed dead would be to add a coordinate map. The Russian article gives the map coordinates, but I don't know how to format such a map. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article yesterday, and I have just learned of this ITN nomination. Since its nom, it has been substantially expanded. It seems very worthy now. Juneau Mike (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now C-class, it would be interesting to hear from the others who expressed support when expanded back when it was a third the current size. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Cynthia Lennon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Cynthia Lennon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former wife of The Beatles member John Lennon, Cynthia Lennon, dies at the age of 75.
News source(s): New York Times, BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: John Lennon's first wife is dead at the age of 75. Andise1 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for RD, I saw this yesterday and half-considered it; I'm not sure how she meets the criteria as being important in her field. Which field? Having said that, the article itself is easily one of the best we've had nominated at ITN for a while, so the temptation to post quality content is strong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not Yoko Ono - in the sense that I don't think Cynthia was notable for anything than being Lennon's wife - while Ono has a musical career of her own. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: A person of modest celebrity, but not really top-of-her-field or independently notable. I'm on the fence, but I lean toward yes based mostly on article quality and the relative dearth of RDs lately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Being the sponse of someone at the top of their field does not automatically make that person the top of their field, and as Starship points out, unlike Yoko , there's really not much she did to elevate her. Nothing special on the death here either. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If she had never been in John's life, "Hey, Jude" would never have been written. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots08:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: - that's some really flimsy rationale to me. Hey Jude wasn't even their breakout single. Article says The Beatles became international stars in 1964, Hey Jude came out in '68. Hilariously, Hey Jude doesn't even appear in the Beatles' article. Guess it wasn't important enough? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a baffling rationale. And yet scarily accurate.--WaltCip (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite brilliant, honestly. Bravo! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Eleven teachers are convicted of racketeering charges for their roles in the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, The Guardian, USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Significant amount of news coverage, is on the main page of the New York Times, according to the Times, the scandal "raised questions nationwide about the wisdom of pushing educators to improve students’ standardized test scores." Everymorning talk 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vote is serious, although the rationale is in the spirit of the holiday. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] RD: Misao Okawa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: Misao Okawa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, CBC, NBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oldest living person at the time of her death. Seattle (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A 117-year-old woman dying seems like it might be blurb-worthy, actually. But I'm a relative newcomer to ITN/C, and I don't recall what we've done in the past with oldest people in the world passing away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Personally I kinda agree this might be notable, but this sort of thing does not usually gain consensus to post because being old is not considered a "field". I think the only thing that would be posted is if the person was the documented longest-lived human ever (beating Jeanne Calment, for example). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - the oldest verified Asian ever (and Japanese). Was the oldest person living as well. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the oldest human from any one racial group is notable enough to post; nor would the oldest current human(as there is always an 'oldest human' and they usually do not have that title for long; as I indicated above I think only the longest-lived human overall would gain consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of your head, name the last holder of this title. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We posted Jiroemon Kimura when he died because he was the oldest verified man. This is not the case here. Generally we don't post currently oldest people dying since this happens often and there are no other claims for notability. --Tone 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Tone and other editors. The oldest person dying is a relatively common event, and is not really "top of the field." I'm not sure if I'd support posting the oldest person ever dying, either, but we may discuss that in a decade or so. Mamyles (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD or blurb. Not having posted something in the past is a rather poor rationale, as consensus can change. Quite a lot of people around the world pay attention to supercentenarians, so when the oldest dies it is significant news internationally. The oldest living person dies less than once a year on average, hardly an overwhelming amount of potential stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, considering Kimura was the last holder of the title and was posted, the most recent time an oldest living person dying that could have been rejected on ITN was December 2012 - certainly enough time for consensus to change. This isn't a court of law - past precedent has minimal bearing on future decisions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's not every day that someone lives to be 117. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots16:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for either blurb or RD Okawa held this crown for almost two years, so it's not like we've been inundated with instances of the oldest person in the world dying. Besides, we only have two RDs at the moment. I see no reason to not post this to RD at the minimum. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose blurb, weak oppose RD - Just living to be that old is not a reason to allocate a spot on ITN (sure, the person must have figured out how to live well, but they did not impact anyone else in their world by doing that), so I strongly disagree a blurb is appropriate. I'm not 100% sure of an RD, as well, for the same reason this is not "top of the field" person. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically your reasoning for opposing is that you do not like old people? lol.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How is an old person the top of their field? The death is not going to cause massive response across the world as the case for Thatcher, Mandela, or Williams. It's a DYK factoid, not an ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This person didn't/doesn't meet any of the three death criteria. Also, it's not a significant enough development for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not dying is not an accomplishment, oppose all such trivia nominations until we have an actual new top of the field, when Jeanne Calment's record is broken. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we consider death a "field", now? That seems like a bit of a stretch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talkcontribs)
Yea, even a Bosworth Field. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb: I do not think the RD criteria apply here, because it is not her passing which is news. To put it another way, RD is for acknowledging the death of people who have previously done something very noteworthy (i.e. "top of their field"). But in this case, I think it is being alive for an astounding 117 years which is the notable thing, and which has now come to an end. That would make this the appropriate time to post to ITN as a blurb. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a minor query, do we then post the next oldest person to die? And the next, and the next? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? Accoding to this list, it has happened less than 60 times in the last 60 years. If we can post sporting results every year, then why not post this? It may not sell as much beer, but I am willing to bet that this news interests more people around the world than the AFL Grand Final, which is listed as a recurring item. (I love AFL as much as I love beer, so I am not suggesting it does not belong on the recurring list.) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any posting. RD should be for people with instant name recognition somewhere. This person has none anywhere except in their own family. Several times per year the oldest living person dies. Until a record is broken, such events are entirely trivial in nature. There's always an oldest person alive, and they're always gonna die soon. Because they're old. A record "oldest person ever" would be interesting enough for a blurb. But otherwise, there's barely enough to hang an article on here. --Jayron32 02:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: