[Posted] Phil Ramone RD

 --331dot (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support easy for R.D. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withholding support pending article update about his death. However, when updated, this would be is a no-brainer RD entry. Highly influential recording industry figure. --Jayron32 18:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - came here to nominate this. Easily among the top in his field for a long period of time, as evidenced by 14 Grammys. However, article needs more referencing and some info on the impact of his death (e.g. quotes from famous people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some quotes added, a few more refs etc. See what you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice, speedy work. I can fully support now. However, it would be nice to get at least one ref into the "Recent work". --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's now done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Incredible breadth. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Major talent, needless to say. Jusdafax 20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked Ready updated and strong support, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If only one of the Kims were here he could declare this ready...again. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for RD. This is a no-brainer, as said. --hydrox (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 03:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] North Korea declares war on South Korea

Dar es Salaam Building Collapse 2013

Article: Dar es Salaam Building Collapse 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 34 are killed and 17 injured when a 16-floor building collapses in the commercial capital Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (Post)
News source(s): CNN News BBC
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Noteworthy with the event featured on many news websites and getting international coverage. --Muhammad(talk) 22:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anybody please comment on this? --Muhammad(talk) 03:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest possible support. News sources are certainly covering this, but the state of the article is marginal at best. The article needs some work, the sources are a bit sketchy, which is odd considering that there's plenty of news sources out there (Twitter comments should not be used as sources, for example). The article itself is pretty barebones, and I am sure that there's enough sources for the information necessary to expand it and make it more complete. The deal is, the purpose of posting something at ITN is to provide Wikipedia readers with additional information on a topic they may have heard about in the news, and the current article doesn't really do that. I'd be fully supportive if the article quality and length and sourcing were significantly better. --Jayron32 03:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anybody assist in improving the article then, please? --Muhammad(talk) 06:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Whilst certainly unfortunate and a disaster for those involved, I can't see any evidence of widespread impact and the death toll is mercifully light. Just not significant enough in my opinion. Modest Genius ^talk 20:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rising death toll means I won't now oppose this, so now neutral. Modest Genius ^talk 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Modest Genius. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm not sure if building collapses are actually all that rare, but with the death toll hitting 20 I am inclined to support. For what it is worth, the disaster has now received coverage across the globe. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I dont know if this matters but the article recieved over 1500 hits yesterday despite being created just a day earlier and not being linked elsewhere. --Muhammad(talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Though with more deaths, we have posted other building collapses previously: 2008 Pétion-Ville school collapse. Spencer^T♦C 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The death count has reached 29 with dozens still missing --Muhammad(talk) 21:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Neutral. While the count has regretfully increased, I still feel it is not high enough to post, but I also feel it is no longer low enough for me to oppose this, so I will change my oppose to a neutral. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have significantly increased the article. It may need a bit of polishing though --Muhammad(talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Klein R.D.

– Connormah (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless there is some reason to assume that restricting himself to regional politics does not impede with him being "widely regarded as very important in his field". Albertan provincial politics is not a big enough field... Kevin McE (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose basically per Kevin. I would consider supporting if he had enormous national effects even though he's a provincial politician, but I'm not seeing those impacts, according to the article. Spencer^T♦C 22:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He just died a few hours ago so I'm sure some more sources may pop up. He was pretty well-known across Canada for his larger than life personality when he was premier. – Connormah (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reuters – Connormah (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning support - He certainly had at least national prominence... experience suggests that he was a household name at least as far as Ontario for a while. International coverage would be appreciated though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Klein's voice was heard across Canada, and his death is definitely nation wide news. We have a thing above about not complaining when an item only affects one country. Regardless, he doesn't satisfy ITN/DC #1 or #2. --IP98 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kevin. 331dot (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Some reaction across Canada here: [7] - I'd say that he could satisfy DC#2 - he was an important figure in Canadian politics during his time as Premier of Alberta. – Connormah (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "One of the greatest natural politicians of his era" [8] – Connormah (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there really ought to be a moratorium (pardon the pun) on citations from obituaries: the principle of de mortuis nihil nisi bonum leads to disproportionate praise and hyperbole. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN isn't the right venue to propose such a policy. WT:RS or WP:VPP would be more appropriate. For what it's worth, I think that's a silly idea, as many biographical articles are substantially enhanced by material sourced to obituaries. Modest Genius ^talk 22:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the context of arguing for the importance and prominence of a recently deceased person (or, apparently, bovine) at ITN/C: exaggeration is more likely to get published, and should not be considered a balanced, NPOV reliable analysis of careers and contributions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Soyuz TMA-08M

Nominator's comments: This is on ITNR, for better or worse, and also is a moderately-interesting 'first'. --Modest Genius ^talk 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITN/R. I think the update is ok, anything else would just overlap Expedition 35. Maybe include Expedition 35 in the blurb? --IP98 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question not sure what "using a new faster route " means. Not able to support even the concept of this until I understand what has actually happened, and how we communicate it through the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they cut through the backyard rather than going around the block. Like you, I can't support until it is more clear on what a new faster route was in the blurb. Ryan Vesey 19:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several news sources talk about a shorter route without giving specifics. Maybe just drop that from the blurb, and mention expedition 35 anyway. Manned space flight is on ITN/R so it doesn't need the "shortcut" to clear notability. --IP98 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're just supporting a transportation of astronauts to the ISS? Was this posted last time? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The search for ITN/C archives isn't great, but TMA-03M and TMA-22 went up. TMA-04M had support, but wasn't posted due to update. Since then, we've established that there is no minimum update, as long as the article gets the point across. In this case, I think it does. Three people were launched to ISS, and got there in 6 hours instead of two days. Also, manned space flights are on ITN/R, the discussion to include it is here. There may be vibrant discussions on ITN/R, but this item is there and was discussed. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the article is a stub, it has a bunch of tables and an info box, and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Quite amazing that it's path did not cross existing "space junk" on it's new much faster route to ISS. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until the article actually technically describes the new faster route. Thue (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow, six hours to get to the ISS? Great ITN item! Jusdafax 01:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the "shortcut" is explained here and has to do with a more accurate orbital insertion angle, but I don't understand the subject well enough to update the article. --IP98 (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh? Can someone explain why this is ITNR with a link to the discussion establishing it? μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manned spaceflights are on ITNR; the discussion is here. 331dot (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally opposed including routine ISS flights on ITNR, but consensus was against me. Modest Genius ^talk 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Recurring item, and slightly more noteworthy than a usual ISS crew change due to the quick rendezvous. The update is almost there; the only problem I see is the one unreferenced section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITNR; even more notable given the use of a new trajectory to get to the ISS. 331dot (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Someone please add the image. --Tone 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Griffiths - death

 --doktorb _words^deeds 10:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For RD or full blurb, I'm very easy on either/or doktorb _words^deeds 10:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ITN blurb. A notable actor, and I personally admire his performances, but the notability of the event is based on his past achievements rather than any particular circumstance of the death in itself. Thus, I think this is for RD and not the ITN list. Also, entertainment-related people usually get more room in the news than other categories of people, and I think ITN should be a bit more restrictive in this aspect. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both Popular and recognisable, but this would be greatly stretching "very important figure in his or her field". Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ticker only. Clearly a notable actor, but not of the tip-top tier that would warrant a full listing. Being "popular and recognizable" is certainly an indication of a minimum level of notability of his profession, on top of his awards. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD ticker: a recognisable and popular actor, but not to the extent of a full blurb. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed apparently never a lead, no awards, not the top of anything. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has gotten awards, according to his article. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose he won a couple of awards for The History Boys late in his career, but there is no indication that he was "widely regarded as very important in his field" as required by ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose definitly notable actor, but not for an ITN mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I was tempted by an R.D. nomination but some here would even have opposed posting Pol Pot's death, so this doesn't stand a hope in hell I'm afraid. Top actor, will be missed, but not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD ticker - I'd call his awards a good indicator of a notable life; worthy, certainly, of a RD mention. Jusdafax 01:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptor

Nominator's comments: The transistor was the last major computer component that hadn't been replicated with biologic parts. Thus, it is now theoretically possible to create a fully functional biocomputer. I think the accomplishment is notable enough to get posted under normal circumstances, but it is the kind of bizarre story that also plays nicely on April 1, so one possibility would be to hold it a couple days for that reason. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Seems a bit esoteric for ITN; better for a technology journal. If we have full biocomputer, maybe, but not yet. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, article is full of hype and sickening quotes. Abductive (reasoning) 14:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Madagascar locust outbreak

• Usual disaster that threatens to worsen existing famine conditions. As noted in the blurb, worst locust outbreak in Madagascar during the last 60 years. Work on article is ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article is sufficiently updated. Are there figures for the amount of damage the locusts have caused? (I looked briefly but could not encounter any). Then an alternate could be something like: An outbreak of locusts in Madagascar, the worst outbreak in 60 years, causes ________ in damages to cropland. Spencer^T♦C 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this information is known at this time; hopefully more information will emerge in the coming days/weeks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Notable disaster affecting a large portion of a country. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, huge impact and prompting huge countermeasures. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Good updates and it's about time we post something new. Eventually, there's a photo as well. --Tone 12:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Post posting support - good call. Jusdafax 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italian FM resigns

• Comment Diplomatic stalemate followed by a resignation after a statement made by the subject at the parliament of Italy. Unusual and rare resignation in diplomatic arena. Notable and encyclopaedic content too!Regards, theTigerKing  16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unplanned resignation due to a specific incident. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Agree with 331dot. Perhaps change shootout trial to murder trial? CaptRik (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the blurbRegards, theTigerKing  14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability. Which article are we bolding? (both?). Agree with the above discussed change to the blurb. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe making both the articles bold would do justice with the blurb. Regards, theTigerKing  16:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Cabinet minister resigns: happens fairly frequently, and the catalyst for it has not been a major international story. Kevin McE (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Kevin McE. If it was a president/prime minister, then support, but not for a lower echelon commander. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not support listing the resignation of a cabinet member of their own volition without any issues involved, but a diplomatic issue prompted this action. The numerous news stories cited above from varied sources would seem to suggest it is notable internationally. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed being reported internationally, but not featured. It is a story with very low profile in those news sites, the equivalent of being on p17 in a printed paper, and therefore it would seem odd for us to give it a much higher profile. Note where the link stands on the news index pages of those sites. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, it would seem the rule requiring international coverage is in the same place as the rule requiring a minimum update ... it doesn't exist. Kindly advise if the facts are otherwise. --IP98 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I say that there was. I thought you were in favour of contributors being able to decide the terms under which they are willing to support a nomination. I see nothing to suggest that it is more important than anything else that might prompt cabinet ministers elsewhere to resign, nor do I see the international media proposing that it is. Given that resignation of a cabinet minister is not listed at ITN/R, its importance simply as the resignation of a cabinet minister has never been deemed necessarily to have passed the importance threshold. If the news media don't consider it important, on what grounds should we? Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If resigning due to how a war crimes case was addressed isn't important, I guess I don't know what is. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a requirement for international coverage, unsaid or otherwise, that doesn't mean the coverage must be on the front page in large text headlines in every news source around the world. Part of the purpose of ITN is "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". 331dot (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There is no rule requiring international coverage, I'm not sure where that came from, but it's a fabrication. Big story in Italy because of the resignation, and India because of the trial. This isn't the CIA director resigning for boffing his biographer, this is much more significant. --IP98 (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has claimed that it is a rule, nothing has been fabricated. Don't try to relive past arguments here, and try to apply WP:AGF. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Significant news of interest to a wide readership. Opposes reasoning fails to convince. Jusdafax 19:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "significant news of interest to a wide readership" you mean an article getting less than half the readership of Ratón the bull, you may have a point. μηδείς (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose by itself a minister resigning is far below the ITN threshold, and if the purpose if this is actually to focus on the fact that Italy is going to allow some of its soldiers to face war crime charges it seems even more like a pointy or ideological nomination commenting on the morality of the war, not at all the minister himself. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morality is not the issue; but how often does a country allow its soliders to be tried for war crimes, and by extension, how many cabinet minsters resign due to involvement in such an issue? This doesn't happen every day. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the issue is the trial for war crimes that is what should have been nominated. The resignation of a cabinet minister is a fail. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I ask again, how often do ministers resign due to some diplomatic crisis? This isn't just a simple resignation. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • They normally resign for some reason, don't they? I am not quite sure how Italy allowing due process against the accused magnifies his resignation's importance. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support for itn mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the story here is about the international incident, which is both larger and more important than a single person's career trajectory. As such, I re-worded the blurb to place emphasis on the incident instead of the FM, but I'm still not convinced that it should run. The practice in these sorts of incidents is to run the news after the results of the trial are known, and I think that's what should be done here as well. To answer some questions from above, there's no reason that this nom should revolve around the FM. He resigned, yes, but the whole government is in transition, and it's impossible to know if he resigned because of pressure and public statements from the PM, or if he resigned because many others of the government have. The person making the most noise about this incident in the _international_ media is Monti, and if the nom must revolve around an individual, it should be him. 80.220.123.162 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ITNR attention needed) BRICS summit

• Comment we normally post the closing of summits, rather than their opening. Formerip (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and see if any major decisions are made in the summit. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting is not relevant in terms of posting, as this is ITNR, so the mere occurrence of this conference was deemed notable. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• An Acronym in Search of an Essence μηδείς (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but post at end of summit. An encylopedia article is better at talking about things after they've occured. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait agree, post at the end. Even if there is no agreement, it's ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above but wait until the summit ends.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, post when summit's over and the article is updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support post summit conclusion For the reasons mentioned above.Regards, theTigerKing  16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it has concluded now. Do you think there is enough content to post? --Tone 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending update - A highly interesting summit, and the list of attendees is impressive, if confirmed. But that brings up the required work: this article needs updating rather badly before a blurb pointing to it can be posted on the Front page. Jusdafax 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the mere fact of the summit having been held--a rationale for why this is more notable than suits in hotel rooms would have to be presented. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is on ITNR and as such was judged notable; if you feel it is not notable enough, propose it for removal. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no important decision was made at the summit as far as I can see. As such it's probably another luxurious chit-chat. Brandmeister^talk 23:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Luxurious chit-chats of global leaders is where the routine existence for the rest of us gets hammered out, so.... --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Pierson

Article: Julia Pierson (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Julia Pierson appointed the 23rd Director, and the first woman, to head the United States Secret Service. (Post)
News source(s): [9] [10]
Credits:

• Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nemesis63 (talk · give credit) and Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 --Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Secret Service relatively small government agency, and being the first [fill in the blank] to lead something isn't really notable. If it's the first woman Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, count me in, but things like this in Western nations are nothing that new. Spencer^T♦C 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Spencer. Too minor a position. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose MI5 has two former women directors general. Not important enough a role to note, nor novel enough that it is a woman. Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SNC to assume Arab League seat

Mild Oppose: Given that many of the Sunni-majority Arab states are the ones who arming and financing the SNC, I'm not sure if this is relevant. Perhaps, if the UN recognizes the SNC we could consider posting. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based on significance and newsworthiness as I can find reasonably prominent news articles about this. Oppose based on the lack of an update as the target article does not have enough prose which covers the event. --Jayron32 03:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is less significant than when the seat was offered to the coalition three weeks ago, see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2013#[Closed] Syrian National Coalition granted Syria's Arab League seat. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, pending an significant update of the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This has support if it is actually updated and not allowed to die on the vine. μηδείς (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per Ryan's commentRegards, theTigerKing  16:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Popular Bank

Nominator's comments: Please do a better blurb, mine are awful. --IP98 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 2012-2013_Cypriot_financial_crisis#Eurozone.2FIMF_deal seems to be a solid update while the could use a little TLC. Spencer^T♦C 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't this be something like "After being closed for more than one week Cyprus banks are set to reopen and capital controls are introduced". The country might be small, but this is a highly significant event. Not just for the possible repercussions to the Euro and by extension the World Economy, but also because the length of the bank closures was unprecedented, the size of the bailout relative to GDP, the introduction of capital controls in an EU and Eurozone country (essentially incompatible with EU and Eurozone membership), the dismantling of the two largest banks of an economy etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.118.155 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration

Nominator's comments: Landmark civil rights case in Hong Kong; big news in Hong Kong, Indonesia and the Philippines. --–HTD 08:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, very important verdict affecting hundreds of thousands of people, noted by media worldwide. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – huge international coverage of the ruling, especially when it was even posted on the BBC News front page for a couple of hours. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Landmark seems to be a subjective term, so I would remove that part. (Alternative suggested above.) Otherwise these seems to be ready to post; marking as such. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Seriously? This is one country confirming the status quo over a relatively narrow section of immigration policy. 3142 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Affects immigrants of many nationalities (both skilled and unskilled) of HK. Narrow but highly impactful section of immigration policy.Regards, theTigerKing  16:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratón R.D

Nominator's comments: "A Spanish bull famous for killing three and injuring scores" "most famous and feared bull in Spain" drew record crowds and earned record rates, subject of a biography and had his own video game created, no question that Ratón ("Mouse") was number one in his field, no pun intended. Please note, according to the recent deaths link "Deaths of notable animals and other biological life forms are also reported here, if they first have their own page" abd there is precedent for listing animals, as was done with a full blurb on the death of Knut (polar bear). μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - He's not people. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do list animals of sufficient fame, read his article. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are different for Deaths in 2013 than they are for ITN. ITN RD is for people. No trees, no fish, no bulls. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. We listed the death of Knut (polar bear) with a full blurb--and he never killed anyone. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I even agree with that posting. But if we're going to post the deaths of non-humans, then they better be the Michael Jackson of the animal kingdom - I would need to see an absurdly notable critter to even consider supporting. This one doesn't do it for me. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bongwarrior, can you point me to the "rule" that says animals aren't applicable as of 2013? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITN/DC states that "...the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death." Perhaps it's not a rule, but it's strongly implied. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, you're interpreting that a bit too literally. It's natural to type "person" as opposed to species-neutral terms like "creature" or "being". I don't think that implicitly or explicitly excludes non-humans. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think that was written without too much consideration for notable animals. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (parrot) is rated B-Class on biographies, which, according to the talk-page is about 'people". In the last 6 years since Knut (polar bear) and Alex (parrot) died there has been no more famous animal than Raton to pass away. Requirements that he be the "Michael Jackson" of animals to get an RD listing are absurd: from the fact that it was explicitly argued that such listings as MJ's death would get full blurbs, not RD's, to the fact that very few bulls are known to record albums, have plastic surgery, or are ever accused of child molestation--while this bull does have his own biography and video game. Posting this is a rather simple matter--the animal was top in his field, the death is widely covered (of far more interest than Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration), the article was a rather good one that existed long before the animal died, and the update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry we disagree, but that's how I feel. It's fine to occasionally post the death of a sort-of-famous person, I guess, but if we're going to start posting sort-of-famous animals, then ITN has become a joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting nomination, the linkrot will be an issue, would hate for this to "die on the vine" (phrase du jour!) if I have to tag the article with ((linkrot)). I note a wonderful five-sentence/three-ref update, so props for that, although, as I said, the attempt at referencing is very weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'll be the first to say support. If he indeed was the top bull in bull fighting, then the animal meets the death criteria. It doesn't say in there that it has to be a human. Why wouldn't we post Koko (gorilla), or another famous animal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the bare url's into citation templates, so the link rot issue is no more. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Heh. Should've tried to nominate Lolong when he died. That croc is beating (when he died) Raton in page views 10:1. –HTD 19:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live and learn, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not have another chance to nominate a death of an animal outside of Europe (or the U.S.) for a long time. Bummer. –HTD 19:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The field in which one is considered a very important figure must be of sufficiently wide interest to our readership for that criterion to be of any effect: I would not think that to be the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No dog shows, no famous bulls. That's not a rule, but it's my opinion. --IP98 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it would have to be an animal so famous that its name would be instantly recognizable across many countries. Abductive (reasoning) 01:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Where does it say that in the death criteria? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recent Death Ticker, by its very nature, has to have names that people will know. Say, if Laika was still alive. She gets 1700 page views a day. Ratón doesn't. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm only N=1, but I never heard of the two on the death ticker before they were nominated here. Accomplishments in their relative field aren't always known by those who don't pay attention to it. I never heard of Laika either. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • One can't trust one's own judgement, so it is better to use page views. Abductive (reasoning) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair point, but page views aren't everything. It's only one factor to consider. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm tempted to support this, but I agree with those saying that this animal isn't quite famous enough in general; additionally bullfighting is not sufficiently popular worldwide for notable animals to be listed here, IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's no bull. --IP98 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Hazar Khan Khoso elected as caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan

 - Mar4d (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He will be caretaker Prime Minister only for a brief period of time (until May). To me, it looks like an ordinary administrative act. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this in theory, as a change in head of government is notable, but I'm confused after skimming the article; is he actually the Prime Minister, or just an interim/acting Prime Minister(which is what "caretaker" suggests)? 331dot (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is an interim PM named provisionally "by the election commission after a parliamentary committee and rival parties failed to agree on a candidate."[13] --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Fighting in Central African Republic capital, President flees to Congo

Article: 2012–13 Central African Republic conflict (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Rebels capture the capital Bangui in the Central African Republic conflict. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Rebels capture Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, forcing President François Bozizé (pictured) to flee to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
News source(s): Reuters BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: According to Reuters: "Rebels in Central African Republic seized control of the country's riverside capital on Sunday, forcing embattled President Francois Bozize to flee into neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo". A unit of 150 French troops have arrived in the country, securing Bangui's airport and reinforcing 250 French troops already in the country. South Africa is readying to send more troops to assist the 400 it already has in CAR training Bozize's army. - Dumelow (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The president of a sovereign nation going into exile and the seizure of a nation's capital all seem immensely significant. I'm not familiar with the conflicts that are taking place in Africa, however regardless of the progress made previously, the seizure of a capital city would widely be considered "game changing". YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very notable event. That first Reuters link was dead so I removed it, but the description seems to be consistent with that of the BBC link. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my support is for the alternative blurb, since it's clearly better than the one I wrote. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending update the last paragraph of "March 2013: invasion of Bangui" needs to be built out. The insurgents must have made some broadcast, or claimed official control over the country. --IP98 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded the article a little and posted an alternative blurb above - Dumelow (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is a major turning point of the war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems serious enough. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree with the above comments by User:YuMaNuMa and User:Futuretrillionaire. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Consensus to post and 2012–13 Central African Republic conflict#Invasion of Bangui is now updated. Spencer^T♦C 16:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Boris Berezovsky R.D.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well according to the Ieng Sary precedent, this should go up. He co-founded a political party. But the article is in such shape that I will be surprised if it gets cleaned up in time for posting. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You really see no distinction at all between the Khmer Rouge and the Unity (Russian political party)? --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • His importance is not restricted to his association with the party. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. It's also funny how some have lost sight of the fact that this is called "in the news". Berezovsky's (unexplained) death is most certainly in the news across the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lead story on guardian.co.uk is "The dwarves of Auschwitz" maybe we should start an article? --IP98 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the lead story on guardian.co.uk is "Russian exile Boris Berezovsky found dead". Perhaps you're viewing a different "international" version which is dumbed down? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You were right, I switched it to the UK version now it's "Shane Smith, founder of Vice magazine 'I want to build the next CNN'". Thanks for the tip, I like Vice magazine. --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Look again: "Police launch search of Berezovsky's home". Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just checked: UK edition now, I dont want to be "dumbed down. It's "Jobs Confidential" and has a little cartoon woman in a dominatrix suit. Don't know what that's about... the British press is really quite good! Thanks!! --IP98 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You're mistaken. The main headline on the left-hand side of the main page is "Police launch search of Berezovsky's home". Anyway, this RD has been posted, so no need to continue this pointless conversation. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ahhhh, ok, I see it now, the tiny byline on the left hand side, beside the cartoon dominatrix. Is that what counts for front page coverage in the British press? I know it's a done deal, I just thought the guardian was funny. BBC had it in a big bold block on the main page. CNN didn't mention it at all yesterday, but then, we're all a bit "dumbed down" over here right? A Russian dies in the UK, and the UK covers it as world news. LOL. --IP98 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "LOL"? Sums it up doesn't it?! I don't even know where "over here" is, nor do I care. Let's both do something more constructive than argue over the placement of the Guardian headline. It's been posted, move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless someone can show how he passes ITN/DC #1 or #2. --IP98 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, he doesn't meet the criteria. Of course if something else happens it will depend solely on that. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant figure of the post-Soviet Russia. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well known globally, an important figure in the business world of the 1990s. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a well known person who exhibited importance in the media for a long time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not seeing how he meets the criteria. From reading the article I see he was a businessman and helped fund a party, but I'm sure he's hardly the only person to do that. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was one of a number of "Oligarchs" who looted the country after the breakup of the USSR. --IP98 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No, I don't think pure evil outranks meh. Of course I will also be very surprised if the nominator bothers to follow through and get this updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks for your entirely unwarranted and unnecessary commentary on "the nominator". The update is that he's dead. That's what R.D. means. (Also, unjustified, in the past few months I've updated Pritzker Prize, Toyo Ito, 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final, Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion, Comayagua prison fire etc.) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The update is that he's dead. That's what R.D. means. I'm not trying to instigate anything, but are you suggesting that an RD nom has a lower update requirement? --IP98 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to suggest it: it was already agreed. Kevin McE (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was far from agreement. Start it over and get admin closure. --IP98 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason to post outright lies? There is no such agreement--and if you want one post an RfC rather than a BS. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer me to where at WP:ITN a minimum update is specified, and then you can make an accusation that such a minimum has not been met. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ITN#Updated_content. There is actually a whole section dedicated to it! The part that's most relevant here I think is ...while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. --IP98 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute untruth: that section that specifically does not specify a minimum update, but states that it is a subjective matter. By all means question a one sentence update (not that that is what we have here), but don't claim that it falls short of a minimum requirement that is nowhere defined. Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you at WT:ITN. --IP98 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'll assume Rambling Man's complaint is a joke, since the article is not updated as of this edit, but still lacks two prose sentences. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your comment: as of that edit, there was a five sentence death section with four in line citations, more than meeting the example described at WP:ITN as generally more than sufficient. Kevin McE (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Vastly wealthy, and highly significant politically, as a Russian oligarch who then dared to take on the Kremlin. Jheald (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait His death is not In The News-worthy, but if evidence of state-sponsored foul play of some kind emerges, well... 79.75.87.76 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidates up for a "Recent Death" (RD) nomination almost always do not have a news worthy death, but their notability while they lived is considered much more greatly. Spencer^T♦C
• Support Update requirement is now clearly met. I think he meets Criterion #2 as a leading and highly prominent businessman. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting the diff that it is Ready also helps. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're getting mixed up Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'll assume Rambling Man's complaint is a joke" - what complaint? what joke? I think you're not seeing things clearly enough Medeis. Perhaps take a break? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Acceptable under WP:ITND #1 as a major actor in post-Soviet Russian politics through his holdings. Might also fulfill #2 (once regarded as a very important Russian businessperson) --hydrox (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted by User:MSGJ at 09:47, 24 March 2013 --IP98 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Israel–Turkey relations

[Posted to RD] Chinua Achebe R.D.

Nominator's comments: Arguably the most famous modern Nigerian and African author. Called the "Father of African literature". —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support This actually seems blurb-worthy to me, not just RD. Achebe's a giant of the field. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I was originally going to make this a full blurb. However, very few details have been released about his death—simply stating that he died "after a brief illness." Although his death satisfies ITN death criteria #2, the rules also state that the article "must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death." Since we can't satisfy the 2nd part of the ITN/DC, I've simply kept this as a RD (which needs just a sentence or two). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RD (which needs just a sentence or two).. That statement is false. --IP98 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Substantiate your claim. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually you who should be substantiating a claim, but since you insist: this is the closed discussion which called for implementation of RD. At no point was it agreed that the update requirement should be relaxed. "The point" was to prevent ITN from becoming "an obituary". The fact is that regardless of blurb or RD, the item is featured on the main page and the update must meet the minimum. If you feel otherwise, you're welcome to propose a change at WT:ITN, but the update requirement currently stands. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. I didn't know about the arrangements for RD criteria beforehand, so thank you for clarifying this for me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a section to WT:ITN to get something added to the instructions page about it, since RD is not documented. --IP98 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Needed The article only has two new sentences as of this edit (three if you count "would prove to be his last publication" added as editorial synthesis--but I don't). μηδείς (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's already been satisfied. An RD requires only a sentence or two. That's what differentiates it from a full blurb, which would require one paragraph. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a few further quotations from the obituaries to show how Achebe is being remembered by major media. The update requirement should now be fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no agreement what so ever that RD noms had a lesser update requirement, or did not have to satisfy ITN/DC. The article is featured on the main page and the update requirement must be met. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said it didn't have to meet one of the three criteria in ITN/DC. In fact, I pointed out how this death meets criteria #2. What I'm saying is the amount of prose required for an RD should be less. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any point in having an RD section, would there? Same requirements necessitate the same publicity. By requiring exactly the same amount of prose, why would anyone choose an RD when they could nominate it in the ITN main section? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. The false belief that RD lessens the update or DC requirement comes up so often that it's kind of a canned response. Sorry. I do realize you indicated this nom passed ITN/DC #2, and I'm in full agreement. I support this nom for RD, but not the claim that a lesser update is acceptable. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD only pending update. Almost there now. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You pretty much can't get through college without reading him. μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is now updated, and I'd say ready, since I can't imagine opposition to this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got through college without reading him. I wasn't a lit major though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support for recent deaths when updated I didn't know of him until just now, when I saw him described as the "father of African literature". That'll do. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not updated. Death section still has a "who" tag, and it's one sentence short. --IP98 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't five sentences enough? When did the requirement get moved up to six? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There was no agreement what so ever that six sentences were required. Let's not invent "requirements" that are unwritten and not agreed upon. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IP98 seems to have miscounted, and the who tag was absurd--the reference quotes "a source close to the family". It is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, completely failed to count. Remove the who tag if you want, just shouldn't be there when the article goes up. Looks ready. Nice to have an FA at ITN. --IP98 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD but oppose full blurb as the notability discussed here is overstated. Achebe is great with no doubt, but still not in the category of Márquez, Murakami, Eco, or Rushdie.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready I am going to mark this ready. I think an admin should use discretion. It looks like there might not be consensus for a full blurb (see below) and I don't think that should prevent this going up now as RD only. It can always be promoted later. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for full blurb

Medeis stated that the nomination for a full blurb should not go in a separate section, but here. Not sure how to format this, so feel free to re-jigger if needed.

• Proposed blurb: "Nigerian novelist, poet, professor, and critic Chinua Achebe dies at the age 82 in Boston, United States."
• Nominator comment: Chinua Achebe is an acknowledged giant of African literature (NYT headline: "Chinua Achebe, African Literary Titan, Dies"). Currently the lead story on the New York Times website and the 2nd highest on the BBC (viewed from the US). As a bonus, Chinua Achebe is a Featured Article, and how often do we get one of those in ITN? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support concept of blurb, is notable enough. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comment above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose full blurb RD was not implemented for "lesser noms", but rather to deal with the perceived flood of death noms which satisfied ITN/DC. This nom does satisfy ITN/DC and as such should be added to RD. The only full blurb deaths which have been posted recently are 2 sitting heads of state and 1 pope. In this case, Achebe is not in the same league. --IP98 (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? He's certainly done more in his field than Zillur Rahman did in his. Achebe was the father/grandfather figure of the literature of an entire continent. Things Fall Apart is the most widely read book in modern African literature. Anthills of the Savannah is considered the most important African novel of the 1980s. An Image of Africa overturned the dominant view on Conrad's work. He received the Man Booker International Prize in 2007. He had a book last year which reopened the debate on the Nigerian Civil War. [15] He was clearly not a flash in the pan.
    • Zillur Rahman died in office, causing disruption in the 8th most populated country in the world. The death in office is what made it "blurb worthy". --IP98 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose full blurb. A person with extraordinary achievements in the past, but where the death in itself ("short illness" at the age of 82) is not that extraordinary. Thus, this is for RD and not for the ITN list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt the same principle would apply to older male has-beens such as George H. W. Bush or Jimmy Carter if a "short illness" finished them off at what would be the age of 88+ The best writers by their nature do not rush a book out every year, see Gabriel García Márquez, whom you might easily dismiss in the same way if you wished.
    • I oppose all former heads of state for full blurb. --IP98 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose full blurb Per IP98 and Mikael Häggström. RD is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. No consensus for full blurb. --Jayron32 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support full blurb. Arguably the the most important writer in African literature in recent times, so meets ITN/DC#2. Before RD, this would have easily passed as a full blurb, and I've always understood the criteria to allow for those at the top of their field to be posted, regardless of how they died (for example, Neil Armstrong - posted as a full blurb - had coronary problems before his death, which wasn't really sudden). Another note is that this is a featured article that fully states his importance with plenty of references and solid prose. Spencer^T♦C 04:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong died before the RD ticker was initiated. I believe that only Ravi Shankar, Hugo Chávez and currently Zillur Rahman have had a death blurb in the era of the ticker. Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the Ravi Shankar nomination was highly contentious. --IP98 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Dave Brubeck also appeared briefly as a full blurb, and was then relegated to RD list. Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for the poor example. A better equivalent example might be Eric Hobsbawm (RD era) who died after fighting leukemia for several years.

And also we've actually had quite a couple posted deaths: Yash Chopra (illnes but still active ), Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (killed in shootout), and a few other assassinations. Spencer^T♦C 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb: meeting ITN/DC is a requirement for going into the RD list, so is not relevant as an argument for upgrading to a blurb. The threshhold for converting that to a blurb is the level and breadth of news prominence that the death has generated, and in this case it has been very limited in coverage. I believe that the posting of Shankar and Rahman also fail such a test and should not have been given full blurbs. Kevin McE (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support blurb he is the leading African literary figure on the global stage (in english anyways, and this is the end WP)Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinua Achebe dies

• I suggest you add the blurb to the other nomination, there will be support for that. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planck (spacecraft)

Nominator's comments: This is an important scientific development. --The Moose is loose! 19:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but with a different blurb and only once the article is updated. The list of updates is much larger than just the age of the universe. ESA Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As far as I understand, "pushing back the estimated age of the universe by 80-100 million years" is one possible interpretation of the data in the image, but professional telescope-botherers (aside from the authors) have not had a head start on the rest of us, so no such conclusions have been confidently made or assessed yet. Formerip (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per FormerIP Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wan't actually opposing the nomination, just commenting on the wording of the blurb. In fact, I would give this a weak thumbs up. Formerip (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 30-odd papers are expected to be published very soon, which should give some better soundbites. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Pietro Mennea R.D.

Nominator's comments: He was one of the most famous sprinters in the 1970s and 1980s, an Olympic champion, and world-record holder in the 200 metres event for almost 17 years. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support posting to RD when updated. Seems to fulfill #2. --hydrox (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Long-time record holder, Olympic champion, clearly notable in their field. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs Update This currently and as of this edit has only a one-sentence update. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clearly notable in their field.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though probably futile. Gold at the 1980 games isn't especially significant, given the boycott. We gave Sarah Burke the sour face last year (I don't believe the actions of the past must always dictate the present, just FYI). Lastly, I'm not seeing how he passes the ITN/DC #2 requirement as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". What did he do for track and field? Sprinting? Anything? We can't go posting everyones favourtie athlete on ITN when they pass away. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really funny and ridiculous to see someone comparing an Olympic champion and long-time world-record holder in athletics with someone in sport like freestyle skiing. I cannot realize how you can draw comparison between one of the most popular sports of all time and something that is barely called a sport. But we don't need to count votes with so much prejudices over the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since we're playing "guess the importance of this sport": It's really funny and ridiculous to see someone comparing a multi-gold medal winner in a dangerous sport requiring a complex skill set with a one-time Olympic medal winner (in a nearly uncontested games) (with a handful of 'European' awards) in a mono-talent sport like running for 200m in a line. I cannot realize how you can draw a comparison between one of the most intense and dangerous sports in the world with something comparable to chasing after a bus. Luckily it's in the news and not what Kiril Simeonovski finds interesting. --IP98 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sport is popular if it is practiced, followed, broadcasted, and receives attention worldwide. The inclusion in ITN depends on whether the sport is popular and not if it's dangerous. Competition events in athletics are followed and broadcasted everywhere, while in freestyle skiing are not. Can you tell me some of the largest media reporting the halfpipe event in freestyle skiing on their pages and others that do not it with athletics? Can you tell me any country where athletics is not practiced and name some athletes from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and other African countries that compete in freestyle skiing. That's all from me. I don't have time to argue with someone who demonstrates either stubbornness or extraordinary lack of knowledge in sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Luckily, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. This nom does not satisfy ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it would be better if you read carefully what the rule states instead of play with the rules. Or simply we should abolish ITN because you don't like the criteria we use to post items.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're talking about popularity then accusing me of gaming the rules? huh? I don't get it. I've asked for someone to explain how the nom passes ITN/DC #2 which is written as "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". --IP98 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Try "held the world record in the 200 meters for 17 years". That would work for most people. Track records come and go (as I'm sure you know) so former world record holder who held the record for 17 years wouldn't constitute a "very important figure" to you? Maybe you have higher standards than the rest of the universe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Surprising lack of awards mentioned on the Wikipedia article, but every major news source is running a story about this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 17 years as holder of record in high profile Olympic discipline makes this a lot more than a guy who won a under-competitive medal. Kevin McE (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready It's clear that the comments are inclined towards posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready Minimum update not met. I realize that my objection to this item not satisfying ITN/DC #2 has not gained consensus. --IP98 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once Again we have a two-day old nomination dying on the vine, because, although people are happy to nominate it and argue for it, adding a few referenced sentences to the article is too much to ask for. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So fix it. Stop your whining and whinging. It's becoming a really boring drone. Fix it. If it's so simple, fix it. Or else, comment on something else, somewhere else, as your current style of commenting on the nominator not the article is becoming really, really tiresome. And in this case, it's really quite an obvious demonstration that your (and one or two others') interpretation of what should be accepted for a R.D. is way out of spec. This guy's article is entirely up to scratch, and he died of an unspecified disease, nothing more to say, but you reject it based on some arbitrary ruling. Use your imagination, be dynamic, stop being constrained by a set of fictional rules you seem to think exist. One or two sentences may be "questionable", but what else would you add to this article related to his death? Answer that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a highly notable athlete, one who held a world record for 17 years in track is clearly considered "a very important figure" in his profession. There's nothing more to add to the article as we have no more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. The death section has a whole two sentences, one of which is "He was 60." μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, what more would you add? Stop whinging and whining and add three sentences yourself (although that's not actually required)... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is rather sad. As of this edit the nomination remains unready. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready. The news is that he has died, and so his life and achievements are afforded attention, not he has died so the process of his death must be of interest. Demanding of an encyclopaedia expansion that is not present in news media is not reasonable. Readiness of the article is a subjective judgement, not a sentence count: by all means state that it seems insufficient to you, and explain what you consider to be missing, but don't claim some quantitative standard that is no part of established policy. Kevin McE (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pietro_Mennea#Biography needs more references. Spencer^T♦C 19:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Truce in Kurdish-Turkish conflict

[Closed] NASA web site shut down