text:
0, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So he coached second-tier basketball and was argumentative? No big deal, certainly not like a successful NBA coach or Olympic coach.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even British media calls him "iconic". I'm not even going to get into the "second tier" statement about a sport watched by tens of millions and not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If he was so revolutionary and iconic, where are all his titles? Clearly his revolution wasn't all that successful... College basketball is second tier. It's not NBA nor is it Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Bloomberg piece refers to this as a "sad week" for basketball- not "college" basketball, just basketball. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even going to say it. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ESPN.com often puffs up sports figures. Again, what are accomplishments besies one NCAA  title.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the associated news stories; Googling his death also brings up many to read. One doesn't have to win titles to be important. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Ive read several sources and i see NOTHING notable except a single title.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have and still don't see it, which is unfortunate, there isn't much more I can do, but I thank you for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So noone can explain why he's notable. And hes posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been explained; if you don't agree, that is your right. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It has not been explained. He has a few choice quotes about his "revolution" which gained him precisely one title.  In second-tier basketball.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * And what does the Boat Race have to do with this nomination of a college basketball coach who one won title in second-tier basketball? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll say it once more; a race between two universities is not "top tier"; it is also a notable sporting event in general. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But this nomination is for an RD for a mediocre college basketball coach, it has nothing to do with the Boat Race. It's best if you stick to the facts of this nomination, a second-tier sports coach who won next to nothing in college sports should not be an RD.  It's obvious.  But then you know that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I know is that further discussion on this with you will serve no purpose if you choose not to see obvious similarities between the two sports/events. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. This is an RD, nothing else.  It has nothing to do with the event called the Boat Race.  You're going down the wrong path altogether, and not helping your cause in doing so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You keep talking about how college basketball is not "top tier".  Neither is the Race, which I bring up as a similarity to demonstrate that, even if true, it shouldn't matter.  This coach is one of a very few people recognized for their career(which isn't just measured in title wins) in the hall of fame for the entire sport(not just college).  I'm finished now; whatever happens here will happen. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh? Sigh?  You're getting it all wrong.  This isn't about the posting of a notable event in ITN, it's to determine whether an individual is notable enough to be posted to RD.  Don't get confused and mix the up.  The coach is almost invariably measured in title wins.  Your continual throwback to Boat Race is a non sequitur, a straw man argument.  If we were to discuss posting a Boat Race coach for RD then yes, no chance of posting.  But I'm clear on that.  Are you?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one bringing up the notability of college basketball, not me. And I have noticed you are now using the euphemism "demographic" for "American".  I get that you are trying to be more civil per the recent ANI discussion but there is no reason not to be open about what you are talking about.  Per Muboshgu below, I will have no further comment about this; whatever happens will happen. 331dot (talk)
 * No reason that the word demographic isn't exactly what I mean. There's a huge voter base for this kind of thing, as demonstrated for the fact we posted two college basketball coaches.  And for the last time, you continually bringing OTHERSTUFF into this is a waste of time.  This is not about the recent death of anyone related to the Boat Race.  Stop trying to bring in non-sequiturs, it's really not helping your cause.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM the only solution here is to get more input here. I'm surprised this nom didn't receive more opposition. I guess for most people an RD mention is no big deal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is still going on? Maybe it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's important that we realise that posting this was a huge mistake and serve to reinforce the hideous systemic bias that afflicts this place when it comes to the votes of sports-obsessed Americans. It needs further discussion to prevent this from becoming a grotesque parody of Fox News.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * in the past I've been on the opposite end of these debates. I've argued for the inclusion of the college basketball championship. I've argued against the charge of US Bias before. But I agree that this is the case of systemic bias and should be corrected. College sports have long been a tough nut here. It is clearly a "second tier" competition but for Americans it has a wider significance. But let's compare Tarkanian to other pro figures. Would one NBA championship be enough for RD? Would one NFL championship? Would one English Premier league title be enough? Would one French league or Scottish league title be enough?  All 335 basketball Hall of Fame members eligible? Because that's really all the notability that Tarkanian brings to the table. He was the coach of a very famous team for a very few yearsand was not a perennial contender for any championship.  The opposition is in the minority but they have asked very good questions that have gone unanswered.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * looking at this nom the !vote count was not strongly in favor. Notability has not been clearly established by a long shot and as been validly challenged. How is there a consensus for this to be posted? Should be pulled.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes it should have been, though since it is no longer in main page I guess the point is moot, however bigger problem here is that it got so much support in the first place even though it obviously doesn't belong. SeraV (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Marshall Rosenberg

 * Conditional support until the orange tag is resolved. Never heard of him before, but Nonviolent Communication is a GA and looks like a huge deal. This should have been nominated under Feb 7 section, though. Brandmeistertalk  14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is way off the quality required, and there's no indication that this death is truly "in the news" outside the individual's own organisation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No indication this death is in the news. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article needs a lot of fixing and more sources are needed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Besides the fact this guy was for peace, nonviolence, and the globe, what did he do? We need a much better rationale. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose his death is not in the news (can't find it anywhere apart from a Buddhist news publication, Lion's Roar), the article is far below main page standards, the awards that he was apparently given are hardly leading awards from major bodies, and he's overall far below the level of importance and prominence that the RD slot is for. BencherliteTalk 11:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I work in the field, and while I've heard of NVC, I haven't heard of him. He's not on a level of an Ellis or a Beck. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 2015

 * Oppose, a local rather than national election. Stephen 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with Stehpen, this is not a national level result, nor a massive upset of power. --M ASEM (t) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not a national election. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chapel Hill shooting

 * Oppose certainly not on the "homepage of the BBC"and a parochial incident which will have no long term impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, when I go to bbc.com and look below the story about the Costa Concordia captain on the left side, I see this story, which states that the murders "sparked global outrage." Seems significant to me. Everymorning   talk  21:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, did you mean "will have long term impact" or "will have no long term impact"? Because the latter certainly makes more sense. Everymorning   talk  21:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. No. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Wait If it's a hate crime, then there's potentially something here. If it's about a dispute over a parking space, then it doesn't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The perp is white, so no doubt he will not be branded a terrorist, and we all be told to calm down and accept an explanation of this which ignores race and religion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Wait as per Muboshgu's reasoning. It's linked from the front page of bbc.com, but it might be reporters jumping to a conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Neutral, see my comment below. It's been getting a lot of attention, and it's on the front pages of my go-to news websites to check a story's importance (foxnews.com, nytimes.com, and bbc.com). Sad, horrific incident. But I'd leave out "Muslim", let's keep it neutral for now. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Commnent. I've seen coverage of this on French TV, and the story was not the murders, but the fact that they have had so little attention from US media (whereas if the killer had been Muslim and the victims non-Muslim...). Not sure if that points to we should post (in the name of consistency) or we shouldn't (because it's not in the useless racist news). Formerip (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been getting plenty of coverage in the US. Whether it's non-muslim killed the muslim or muslim killed the non-muslim it's a big deal here. #AllLivesMatter -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose as parochial routine crime. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: a neighbor has killed three people and a motive is not confirmed. This is not global news. Putting "Muslim" in the blurb is stirring as a hate crime motive is not confirmed. They are also students, neighbors, Americans and humans. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not global news." That's why BBC and Al-Jazeera, for example, are not reporting it. Oh, wait... ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree with Muboshgu, If it is a hate crime we should post it. SeraV (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I heard world leaders are gathering in Chapel Hill to protest at Je suis Muslim rally. Also the story is trending on twitter. Moorrests (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The true motive is unknown to anyone except the perp at this point. But the global response to this may prove to be a bigger story than the murders themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we did not post the shooting of two cops in NYC or the French Deli shooting. The fact that this may have been a hate crime in no way brings it to the level of the Korean airline crash of the Russian bombing of a civilian bus we totally ignored.  To address Evereymorning above, where is the nomination for Obama's request for a formal declaration of war against ISIS?  In the long term, this will be a footnote's footnote. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point about Obama's request for essentially a war declaration, although it might make more sense to post that when or if Congress approves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, changed to neutral above, perhaps me being from North Carolina and all prevents me from seeing what the rest of the world sees... -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it doesn't appear that this was a hate crime and either way it doesn't really rise to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The motive is unknown, and the story has received global coverage, so you've got it wrong on both counts. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we don't know the motive, we don't know if it was a hate crime. If it wasn't a hate crime, there's no reason to post it here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Not prominently reported in UK.  Seems like a routine (for US) event.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Times of India covered it, but maybe they don't count because they're not in the UK. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it's still being linked from the front page of bbc.com. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not being notably reported in the UK, nor is it linked from the UK BBC homepage. A trivial neighbour bust-up which resulted in a standard US finish with gun crime and deaths.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who claims it's a standard shooting has no basis for that claim. The motive is unknown at this time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree with Muboshgu's opinion. Thus we should wait on this and consider again once we know more (specifically about the actual motives of the suspect). Palmtree5551 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well according to the BBC, and digging down in the US section of the BBC website and finding the second from bottom story here, he "gave himself up to police". His wife "said that the incident had nothing to do with religion". The report goes on to note that the perp "apparently had a history of conflicts with neighbours over parking spaces".  And because it's the US, you can shoot your neighbours because guns are freely available.  That they were Muslims seems coincidental.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this which seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. Thus the point that we should wait on this until we know for sure outside of media speculation and speculation by the perp's wife and by people close to the victims Palmtree5551 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The motive is unknown at this time, and anyone on this board who claims otherwise is engaging in pure speculation with no factual basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to keep posting this same statement every half–an–hour. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you're the first one that hasn't ignored it. Update: The motive is still unknown. Hate crime? Parking dispute? Maybe both? The alleged perp was known for wearing a sidearm in public, to intimidate others in the course of these disputes. And he called the towing company so often that they banned him. Whether the Times of India has it right that he also hated religion, I have not seen in American coverage. But to the family of the victims, it feels like a hate crime, and until proven otherwise, the possibility of it being a hate crime is still on the table. And the FBI has come into it now, too. The only valid answer here is "Wait and see." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - In America, I cannot access the British version of bbc online. So I asked about it, and those who can see it have told me that the British version of bbc online not only links to the story, but that it's currently in the top ten most-read in the UK version of the website. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lunatic from everything I have heard today, the shooter was a madman, divorced in the 90's, whose "beef" was about a parking space. Given we're not about to post that a lunatic shot three children over a parking space, I continue my opposition to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No argument on the "Lunatic" part. It's still too early to tell what his motive was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, is the motive known yet?--WaltCip (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

 * Note - "Hicks described himself in online posts as a 'gun-toting atheist'." The notion that this is solely about a gun fanatic and not about religion is baseless speculation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As is the notion that this is about religion.--WaltCip (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why "Oppose" is the wrong answer. The right answer is "Wait and see." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Note - Quba Islamic Institute is burned to the ground in Texas today. Is their a link with Islamophobia spread by media like CNN, Foxnews and BBC. Moorrests (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Disregarding your second sentence, I must say that is a hate crime, quite disgusting, but hate is not limited to one group of people you know. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment It is so disgusting that Wikipedia has posted 2015 Copenhagen attacks and not a attack on minority. Moorrests (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must repeat what I said above, the Muslim students were not famous, they did not draw caricatures offending Christians, and they were not hosting a freedom of speech event when they were killed. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But they were all Muslims and minority even more reason to post it. Moorrests (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The general belief is that it was over a parking space, killing a white person over a parking space, or killing a Muslim over a parking space, it makes no difference, he's a nut, and every once in a while we hear that a nut shot a person over nothing. Posting it because you think that it has to do with religion would be pushing a POV. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you check Mr. Hicks Facebook page? I'm starting to think 9/11 was a dispute over baggage fees.Moorrests (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, link? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been taken offline by Facebook but it was up couple of days ago. It was very incriminating, a typical anti-theist or atheist posting. Moorrests (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I don't know why you'd want me to check a Facebook page that was taken down. And now you've absolutely insulted the 9/11 victims and their families. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You insulted 2015 Chapel Hill shooting victims and their families by referring the incident is over parking dispute. Moorrests (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment - From what I can tell this story has recieved undue weight because the victims were Muslims. Not the opposit, sad and tragic case but really nothing out of the ordinary, except the fact that media now is reporting on medias uninterest in the story which is simply not true. There is a difference between a mad man killing three people in a fight over parking space in a gun crazed USA. And a terrorist shooting into a gallery towards people in Denmark. Terrorism in Denmark, crazed gunman in the US.. period. Secondly I would not have minded posting this article, as it has recieved major attention even though it is undue weight. But the consensus seems to be not to post so.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion it is another case of how the world overreacts when muslims are the victims, while at the same time downplaying Muslim terrorism like the story from Denmark. It is a sad case certainly, but had it been three white average Americans it would have recieved press but not even half of what it has recieved because of the fact that the victims were muslims. And that is todays truth.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, some people are like "they were from a minority, this was a hate crime" and on the other side you have "They were Muslims, they aren't humans", can't we get across that people are killed, not members of a majority/minority group were killed, that it's tragic regardless of religion/race/ethnicity? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Premier League

 * This may be a record for association football, but not for sports in general. The numbers are giving me a headache, but it appears that this is less than the value of the National Football League's various television rights. I could be mistaken, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support I was going to oppose this as a routine contract deal between businesses, but on researching it turns out that this is indeed notable. The rights sold for double what they did in the last contract, and is a record (on amount per year). This bidding war demonstrates the increasing national significance of the Premier League. Mamyles (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Presumably, almost every time the TV rights for the Premier League are sold, it is going to set a new record for domestic football/soccer. None of the sources are very clear about what sort of record has been set, but it is almost certainly going to be narrower that "sport" (because NFL and the World Series appear to make more in TV rights) or "football" (although it's possible that this is the biggest ever single deal, the Champions League is probably more lucrative overall). Does anyone have any information that this is more than a "well, of course" type record? Formerip (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the significance is not yet outlined well in the article. Based on my (brief) research, the price paid for this national contract was almost twice the previous contract. This contract ($2.5 bil/yr) cost more per year than the current NFL contract ($800 mil/yr), even though this Premier League contract is for one relatively small country. Basically, television rights for the Premier League in the UK (population 66 million) are now worth three times as much as those for the NFL in the USA (population 320 million). Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting your figure for NFL rights? According to this source the last NFL deal was $27 billion over 9 years, so that's more than $2.5 billion per year. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the headline figure above doesn't include foreign sales, it's just in the UK alone, is that the same for the NFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Formerip (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so in a country with a population over six times the size of the UK, the main sport sells TV rights for the same amount of money. Understood.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you've roughly got it. The question is whether that feels right for an ITN blurb. Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the radio, the ballpark calculation was that it came to £10 million per match for broadcasting rights. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I used this source to come up with my figure of $800 mil/yr. Just goes to show that Wikipedia may not always be right. In any case, that the amount paid for these television rights doubled in 3 years seems interesting and notable enough for me. Mamyles (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support per FormerIP, the rights to broadcast the English Premier League in the UK have just been purchased, per capita, for over six times the rights to broadcast the NFL in the USA. This is big potatoes.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But we don't seem to have a source for this per capita record. Plus, if the rights to the Faroese Premier League sold for a little over $2 million, that would break this per capita record. Would we post that? Formerip (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do the math(s), the USA has a population that's around 330m vs the UK at around 60m? And no, your straw man is pointless.  This is all about the record amount.  The per capita argument is simply contextual to refute any possible argument that the NFL rights are in any way comparable for the audience the TV is sold to.  I think you know this but I guess it needs spelling out.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, what record are you referring to? The only thing we appear able to either source or calculate is that this is a record for EPL UK TV rights. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks to your contextual evidence, it's clearly a massive business deal that's ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose the record is based on the fact of (worldwide) inflation, and has nothing to do with actual accomplishments by an objective standard. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not against having association football stories in ITN, but this seems to be more suitable for International Business Times or Forbes. Impressing sum, but so what? Everyone would still watch Premier League without any glaring difference. Brandmeistertalk  22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but leave out reference to the 'record '. The number speaks for itself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine business deal. SeraV (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, posting this would be disruptive to years of work building consensus that news stories such as this don't deserve an article, let alone increasing readership by display on the main page. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have its own article, and in what sense is posting a huge business deal not something we could (and should) consider for the main page? I grant you it's not an American sport, but it's world-wide...  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the 'record' being set is too pigeonholed and/or unclear to be broadly appreciated.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - This commentary from bbc.com may be of interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This seems starkly routine to me, and we certainly would not post the national equivalent anywhere else in the world.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "starkly routine" - that's funny. I'm not sure when else in the rest of the world that a deal like this would equate to finishing 20th out of 20 teams would now result in prize money of £99 million.  But hey, it's soccer, who cares about such a parochial game?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where I come from, we call it football.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, if the NFL domestic TV rights were sold tomorrow for over $50 billion, are you suggesting we wouldn't be inundated with claims to post it as a "significant business deal"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everything has to be about American bias at ITN/C, TRM. And it doesn't all matter about where we are from. But do you want us to include the "flagicon" template in our signatures to announce our nationality? That's what I have gotten from the four months I've contributed to ITN/C. Some Americans know that the Premier League is a big deal, and likewise I'm sure some Brits know that the NFL is. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the NFL were to sell all of its television rights to ESPN (which in terms of the NFL viewing audience would be earth-shattering indeed), I would not support it, because it's not internationally significant enough.--WaltCip (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's the point. The Premier League is truly global, unlike NFL.  It's a global phenomenon.  The fact the domestic rights are sold for £10m per game is incredible.  Don't forget we're talking about hard cash here, not just viewers.  It's internationally significant, can you show me another sport that's sold globally in such a fashion?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support, big record, and a big deal. (American speaking here) -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine business deal, a side detail to sports. On a slightly different topic, I'm a bit surprised that the Premier League is the only league where its winner gets an ITN mention, when Spain and Germany get worldwide attention too...I'd rather just the Champions League '''tAD''' (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we've got a standing precedent against deals with sports channels. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This isn't just "another routine business deal" - this is the largest deal ever made for the League. The sport isn't the focus of this, it's the record that is. Challenger l (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's great to see people other than yours truly making up stats to justify importance. – H T  D  23:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you elaborate on that comment? Mamyles (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Leaks

 * Oppose. Generally we don't post investigations; possibly notable arrests but usually convictions. ITN is not for telling the world about causes.  This is also a private investigation and not that of a governmental body. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate promotion? Your comment and link to Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause is misleading. The article is not about “promoting a charitable, non-profit, or quasi-charitable organisation, such as a community group or legislation.” The article is about facts made available to the public - far from being promotional in any sense. Luxsarl (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the nomination; Perhaps it was a little misleading, but my overall point is that I don't really see a reason to post this other than to embarrass this big bank and get them in trouble- which may be valid- but isn't what ITN is for. As I said, usually investigations are not posted, maybe an arrest but usually a conviction. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not confuse the involved International Consortium of Investigative Journalists with a NGO or a political group. They are just journalists. Most articles in ITN are based on some sort of "journaistic investigation". You should not insinuate that the event is to embarrass a bank or a business. Journalism is about reporting to the public issues of general interest. ITN pursuits the same goal. Whether the event may be perceived as positive or negative doesn't matter here. Luxsarl (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Just journalists" is still a private organization. ITN is not a newspaper for reporting on the public interest; it is for highlighting Wikipedia articles about subjects that are in the news.  Wikinews might be better suited for that kind of story. I'm not sure what you mean by "most articles in ITN are based on some sort of journalistic investigation"; most nominations regarding criminal activity are, as I said, regarding arrests or convictions by governments. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * News organisations such as newspapers are private organisations. So? The ICIJ is a network of jouralists from reputable media organisations. "The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists is a global network of 185 investigative journalists in more than 65 countries who collaborate on in-depth investigative stories" . The article Swiss Leaks is "in the news". The article is about a leaked dataset. This dataset has been investigated by journalists (Le Monde, CBS, Guardian, NDR, etc.). The article is not about criminal activity per se. Luxsarl (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This page states that a Belgian judge might issue arrest warrants, along with other countries taking legal action(like the US); I think that would be a much better hook for this story than the release of an investigation- or at least making the blurb more about the leak instead of the investigation(though this leak occurred in 2007). 331dot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've suggested an alternate blurb. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for critizising constructively! I support your suggestion. Luxsarl (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to support this now, I've also added some other news sources. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Support bank colluding with tax dodgers hiding tax money worth of billions is certainly ITN material. SeraV (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is unbalanced, POV and unfit for the main page. BencherliteTalk 14:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest to make it more balanced? WikiLeaks stories were posted without such concern. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old "we've posted stuff before so let's post stuff again" line of argument. Some balance would make it balanced. Three out of the five sources used in the article are from the ICIJ itself.  We have allegations presented as fact: HSBC helped dictators such as Hosni Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunesia), Bashar al-Assad (Syria) to steal money from their countries. (And isn't "dictator" a non-neutral term anyway)? The leaked documents prove – "says the ICIJ / according to the ICIJ"? No, this is just presented as plain fact in Wikipedia's voice. Where's the coverage of HSBC's response in all this? I have no great love of banking practices but this is just completely unsuitable for the main page in anything like its current state. BencherliteTalk 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There can only be balance so far as what reliable sources provide. If there are some detailing the bank's response, certainly those should be included.  My point was not a line of argument, just an observation.  I also don't believe "dictator" is a non-neutral term if it is applied to people elected in elections generally regarded as unfair or rigged. Saddam Hussein was reelected many times with 99% of the vote; that doesn't mean he wasn't a dictator. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Weak Oppose Understanding that the leaks and what it implicates to the bank being important, I think we need to wait for the likely inevitable legal case against the bank that will result from this (assuming the leaked information is true). I'm not sure if now is the time to post this. --M ASEM  (t) 15:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot, we have no balance in this story. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by balance, it is not very likely that HSBC have followed all relevant laws here after all. This is also same bank that was found by the US to have been laundering drug money for mexican drug cartels, and have been accused to have done the same for terrorist, so this bank have known history of criminal conduct already. SeraV (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is objective and neutral so we cannot assume that the leaked information is valid until law officials tell us this or that the bank has done anything wrong in this specific manner. As such, the article is written in a manner that already presumes the bank has done these things. We can cite that the leaked information claims that the bank did it, but we cannot say factually that they did. --M ASEM (t) 16:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Countries are very unwilling to prosecute these banks because they are apparently too big for that. See that money laundering thing, HSBC was penalized for 1,9 billion and effectively found guilty yet no one from the bank was prosecuted, probably because US didn't want HSBC to lose it charter. However on this specific case, people who have used HSBC to evade taxes have been prosecuted in several countries, including France, doesn't that already prove that HSBC have done the things it is accused off. SeraV (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not designed to right great wrongs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM has it right. We can't assume just because these cases are all associated with the bank's past wrongdoings that they are necessarily in the wrong here even if the evidence is overwhelming in that way. We cannot make the same assumptions that some in the press commonly do, presumption of guilt before any legal findings have been completed, though we can certainly express the opinions with citation that some believe this implicates the bank in guilt. --M ASEM (t) 17:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't make assumptions here, we go what reliable sources are saying. And in this case they are overwhelmingly saying that HSBC has broken laws in multiple countries even. We don't have to pretend that news aren't saying that. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If these sources are only reporters and the like, and not police, investigators, judges, or others in a position of authority to make that determination, then we can only express that as their opinion. The court of public opinion is not an authoratative source. --M ASEM (t) 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Expect when they are wrongs that you want to right, like no-one giving a damn about a cricket expect for you. SeraV (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Genius! Do carry on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will! Thanks for the high praise! SeraV (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. See you in a year or so.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt you see anyone ever from your high horse. SeraV (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. The article is factual. Otherwise please make the appropiate changes! The question of guilt is not dealt with in the article. It's not really important whether the business conduct of the bank leads to charges or not for deciding whether the leak is "in the news" or not. Neudabei (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not one for conspiracy theories per se but here we have an editor called "Lux sarl" and an editor called "Neudabei" (registered five days apart) both adamant to post this. Both are relatively new editors and both have edited mainly Luxembourg articles.  Just saying.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are simply allegations at this point, and are being denied by some parties involved. I don't see why we should give credence to this report so soon. It would be better to wait for a related event of international significance, such as a conviction or sanctions. Mamyles (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose that an anti-business party is making allegations that assume one believes businesses should pay more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay is a joke, and a bad one. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem confused, this nomination is about actual tax dodgers who have hidden their money in effort not to pay all taxes they are legally obligated to pay and an bank who have been helping them to do that. SeraV (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Please repeat that in proper English. It's not otherwise comprehensible. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Anwar Ibrahim imprisoned

 * Weak oppose. The blurb says his conviction was upheld, meaning he had already been convicted; we usually post this sort of thing when convicted, if I'm not mistaken. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is this decision that is the "big news moment". His conviction by the Court of Appeal was immediately stayed pending an appeal, meaning that he never went to prison and politics pretty much continued as usual. But this is the end of the road - the highest court. It's now that he's been driven off to gaol; it's now that he's removed from the Malaysian political scene. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * FWIW, we posted his original acquittal in 2012, but I cannot see (using "What links here") that the reversal of this decision by the Court of Appeal was ever nominated for ITN. BencherliteTalk 10:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is not about the crime or the sentence, it's about Malaysian politics. With this sentence, the only effective challenge to the ruling clique for decades is effectively over. Perhaps the blurb needs to be updated to reflect some of that background, though it's hard to see hour it can be done neutrally. GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This wouldn't be legal in the US, given he was acquitted. But the fact that the SUpreme Court has reupheld his conviction speaks volumes, and is of course an ecyclopediclly historical development. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 13:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ed Sabol

 * Support - major figure in the evolution of coverage of the sport. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unopposed as the founder of NFL films, this certainly seems reasonable, although we seem to be all about elections, sports, and terrorism. μηδείς (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, all the Old Masters are already dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this site is plagued with newism. I called my father, who used to listen to Jhon "The Voice of God" Facenda, and asked if Sabol was important  His opinion was that he and NFL Films were most important.  On the NFL Films basis one can count my comment as a...
 * Support. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The NFL Films approach revolutionized the way sports films were made. Prior to that, they looked like newsreels, complete with music tracks seemingly done by a college marching band. Superior filmmaking techniques, combined with dramatic music and dramatic narration, made for a much improved package. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support seems notable enough for the dead American sportspeople ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem like a lot of them have died this week. There haven't been a lot of other RD nominations, either. I might add too that Sabol is kind of half-sports half-film/entertainment. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. 91 Emmy Awards. 91. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ready sufficiently updated for RD policy and well supported. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: His biography, particularly Ed_Sabol, seems rather sparse. Sure this may possibly meet minimum update criteria to some, but there's nothing in the article that talks about what he did between 1964 and 1995, a period of 30+ years when surely something worth noting in his article must have occurred.  Spencer T♦ C 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The poor man lived 101 years, I assume the 30-year gap was called "retirement". μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He retired in 1995. I was hoping the article would shed more light on his work with NFL Films, which is what he's notable for.  Spencer T♦ C 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article possibly meets the bare minimum for posting, but it's pretty bare-bones. The rest of the article is fine, but the section that details what he's most known for is pretty disappointing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to summarize that section as it currently reads: Started company, filmed NFL Championship Game, changed name of company, quote by son, retired, Hall of Fame, Hall of Fame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And is there no-one better to quote about the work that NFL Films did than his son? Surely some of the obituaries can be used to flesh this out a bit more before it gets posted. BencherliteTalk 19:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * His son died 3 years ago so probably won't give too many great quotes these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 20:36, 10 February 2015
 * The question was isn't there anyone better to quote about his work than his son, your comment is completely irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Marked ready again, CN tags taken care of and obvious support for nomination. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ESPNs take on it, including a quote from Commissioner Goodell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and not ready. Reading the article says little about what he did. Also, fails the RD criteria; clearly the Emmy Awards were for a team effort, or they would have awarded them to him, not a company. Extremely narrowly defined field he is supposed to be on top of; in-house sports documentary company co-founder? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, very sparse article, not in any way showing he is relevant under any of the RD criteria. Not sure why Medeis insists on marking this ready when it clearly inst? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on anything. The article had been tagged, I addressed the tags, there was not a single oppose vote, and the article does indeed meet minimal requirements.  What I find really interesting is an IP editor from Britain who had nothing to do with the nomination or anything else current on this thread swooping down anonymously to criticize me personally. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ready, per update. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - His notability is greatly exaggerated and mostly contained to a niche field of entertainment.--WaltCip (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * smh re: "niche field of entertainment". Per WP:ITND No. 2, "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field."—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hard to approve while the article doesn't expand more on his impact, aside from a list of awards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if article can be made ready. The term 'niche field' blatantly mischaracterizes the situation. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose Four days ago and hardly "recent" anymore. With the article a sparse to paragraphs and all the comprehensive obituaries available, there has been nary an update to the article on his impact. Sigh. RIP Mr. Sabol.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 57th Annual Grammys

 * Support once the intro is updated to more than two lines. And when the blurb includes Pearl Jam's win for Best Recording Package...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until some referenced prose shows up in the article. There's no prose describing the ceremony, no prose giving an overview of the major awards.  A bunch of tables and charts is not enough for an article to be posted on the main page.  We've got about 4 complete sentences in the whole text.  If and when that is fixed, consider it ready to post.  But not the state it is in right now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that the lede needs improvement to reflect the results, but consider the BAFTA award page below, which was posted without hesitation but which the page is just basically a lead and award tables, the rest of the detail of the ceremony itself can come in time. --M ASEM (t) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because something substandard was posted, it shouldn't set a precedent for something else substandard to be posted. Remember?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

 * Beck looks rather yellow gold in the accompanying pic! ---Sluzzelin talk  20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeck! -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Africa Cup of Nations

 * Support, but there should be at least a minimal prose update with regards to the final. Formerip (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Major tournament, ITN/R, etc.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support No question that this should go to ITN, it is on the list of regular events. I wonder though if the blurb should have info about the nature of the penatly shoot-out or would that make it too long? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and agree that the penalty should be mentioned, see my altblurb. --PanchoS (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ITN never mentions the score, margin of victory or the equivalent in sports updates, so if posted this shouldn't mention the penalty shoot-out. BencherliteTalk 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The first proposed blurb should be adequate. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?  14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] British Academy Film Awards

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

[Closed] RD: Alexander Vraciu

 * Does the format of the nomination imply that Nergaal who comments is a sock of Andise1 who gets credit as nominator?
 * No, and I am certain Nergaal just copied my nomination to make this one and forgot to switch my username as his. Andise1 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Suppport an interesting story from a minority topic. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it isn't a case of socking, but rather Nergaal copied and pasted from the thread directly below and forgot to change the nominator (which I have now done). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I suspected an innocent explanation, but it never hurts to keep Nergaal on his toes. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support - per nominator - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Stale? It says he died on January 29. Also, the article isn't updated, as the prose makes no mention of his death (how, where, etc.). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RD nominations are logged based on date of death; the 29th is too late. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is no such policy making RD differ from ITN. General ITN policy is that information that only became public at a later date is acceptable at the date of publication.  The Times article dates to Feb 7.  Unless we have other major sources that were published on the 29th, there's no problem with this. μηδείς (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't claim it is a policy, but it has been my experience that is general practice for deaths. --331dot (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose article is woeful, not of sufficient quality for Wikipedia's main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Billy Casper

 * Support - indeed one of the best golfers. RD seems appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  Mild Support certainly a notable golfer and a remarkably prolific winner. Article is in an okay state, the lead is too short and it is under-referenced but it's vogue to let that slide these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead is much improved and article is way into decent RD territory nowadays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - an important figure in the game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose 3 majors only. Pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.  Its  minor headline in most news sites.  No interest for non-golf fans. Article is lousy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article states "was one of the most prolific tournament winners on the PGA Tour from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s" and "Casper had 51 PGA Tour wins in his career, with his first coming in 1956. This total places him seventh on the all time list." He has also been inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame and has other recognition.  Also, very little would be posted to RD if nominations were required to be of interest to people outside a nominated field. What matters for RD is the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support Seems to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Charie Sifford was black. I mean Support: Casper was merely a much better golfer. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to say about the merits of this nomination? If opposing something because we disagree with something else that was posted was a valid oppose, very little would get posted. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are asking for a point, then Sifford, whose best result was to be tied for 21st in a national competition, should be bumped if we are going to post this otherwise much more worthy candidate. Either that, or an ongoing section for deceased athletes, which might not be a bad idea. μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Billy Casper did not have to overcome race prejudice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Once Sifford was on the wider field, did he face further race prejudice that explains his mediocre record compared to Casper? I simply think it would be absurd to have both players at once.  Nor do I need personal education on prejudice, racal or other, I have seen it and experienced it physically.  I assume my stand is clear, and don't want to further interrupt the nomination discussion itself. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sifford wasn't allowed on the PGA tour until he was nearly 40. Stop comparing apples to oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't want to comment further, but being told to shut up doesn't help. Casper had twice as many PGA championships after 40 as Sifford had and Sifford's best national tournament score was to tie for 21st place while Casper won three times. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] When Will You Marry?

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

 * Support. Seems a notable event in the art world, getting coverage. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I have provided an altblurb to more accurately reflect how we catalog these (there might be art deals done under the table we have no idea of price). Article has been updated, and based on the sources, the identity of the buyer might not be known for some time. --M ASEM  (t) 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've scotched my own blurb, and replaced it with yours. There is no need for an alternative, as I agree with your revision. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support cliche I know, but I was gonna nominate this... Notable art world event. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Significant record (although the "reportedly" aspect is slightly concerning). Suggest blurb also contain USD amount: $300 million. Sca (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you have an issue with pound sterling, a major reserve currency? WP:ENGVAR. Regardless, I've added it in brackets. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, to give U.S. readers, and others globally who may be more accustomed to dollar amounts, a figure they can readily understand. Obviously, one has nothing against also giving the £ price. Sca (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the currency should be whatever one the transaction took place with; that said, the BBC article uses dollars first, with pounds in parentheses. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article also uses dollars first. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no right to request such a change. Per MOS:RETAIN, the first variety of English is retained. I wrote it in pound sterling, and it will stay in pound sterling. It is perfectly acceptable to do so. Pound sterling is the third greatest reserve currency, and there is no reason why it cannot be used here. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Who are you to tell me what I do and do not have the "right" to do? I can make any good faith requests that I wish- which isn't even what I was doing here. I was only suggesting a course of action- and then pointed out that the sources offered (British sources mind you) indeed use dollars. It seems to me that what RS are saying is relevant, even if it isn't what we end up doing. No one is trying to diss pound sterling. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I read MOS:RETAIN it says that the first used variety of English is the default, not that it is the only one that can ever be used on that page. If there is consensus to change it, it can be changed. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. I'll add it to current events. Here's our image. Too bad the man died broke. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Paul_Gauguin_138.jpg
 * "Vulgar American currency" FTW! – H T  D  15:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

<br style="clear:both;" />
 * Comment – At the risk of stating the obvious, may I point out that much of the world relies on what Gloucester terms "vulgar American currency"? (See chart) Sca (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From now on, every US centric blurb that I feel should be supported should start with "Support vulgar American ". – H  T  D  16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The artist was French, you know. --George Ho (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You know I wasn't exactly referring to this event. TBH I'd prefer Swiss francs as it seems the sale was done in Switzerland(?). So unless the actual sale was done in another currency, I'd go for CHF. – H T  D  16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To make it truly international, suggest posting all future sale amounts in PBUs (Pizza and Beer Units). Sca (talk)

 * Support - but without the conversion. AFAIK, the painting was sold in dollars, so that is all we need to mention in the blurb. We can leave conversion to Euros, Pound Sterling and Intergalactic Credits to the article, Mjroots (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support posting with only the "vulgar" American currency, since the BBC headline says "Gauguin painting breaks sale record at nearly $300m". And WP:TROUT RGloucester for his ethnocentrism. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment When people get annoyed for some reason, it is very uncool to keep poking at them. The currency/ies used is fairly unimportant, and while discussion on which to use is fine, I guess, let's stop mocking/personalizing this, particularly since they are not participating in the discussion anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Much to-do about not much. Sca (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed - and as to note, the current choice appears to be based on the NYTimes' use of USD, as the deal was one reported by experts in the field but not done though a more formal channel like an auction house where we would likely have used the currency the house used. So use the current "USD (GBP)" approach matches with the reliable source here, and not so much an issue of national-centric normalization we would normally try to do. --M ASEM (t) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Gloucester names himself after a tyrant but prefers the role of court jester.

 * Support Altblurb as an easy concession to clarity. Marking ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted alt blurb which seems to have consensus. The dollar wins.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Any chance a handy David Levy could do an image switcheroo when he has a chance? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Dean Smith

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

February 2015 Baghdad bombings

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

[Closed] RD: Alan Nunnelee

 * Support DC#1 says "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death". He was a sitting member of the U. S. House of Representatives when he died. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Muboshgu. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose DC#1 states "high-ranking office of power". Clearly a member of a parliament does not qualify. Government minister perhaps, but not this. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with the anon, merely being a member of the House isn't enough to qualify. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we could argue that the U.S. House isn't a "high-ranking office of power". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 435 of them currently, and he was a member for only four years. The number of living current or former members of the House is somewhere in the thousands, and you can bet the farm that we aren't going to post them all just because they were in the House. If we were talking about a Speaker or otherwise long-tenured member, I'd probably feel differently. As it stands, the article doesn't suggest he was a particularly powerful or influential politician, and the overwhelming majority of our readers have never heard of this person. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm with you on most of this, and as I say below, I'd vote oppose if he was out of office, but DC#1 says "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death" and that's clearly the case here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not clear at all, unless you consider the 542nd most powerful politician in America "high-ranking". --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With over 320 million people, I don't think that's an unreasonable consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we posted this congressman, we would need to post every member of a national legislature that dies in office. Would you support posting a member of the Parliament of Tuvalu dying in office? 331dot (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c)In what other countries, apart from America, would you say all members of one of the two bodies constituting the legislature have "high-ranking office[s] of power"? Or is America a special case? BencherliteTalk 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's hard for me to say, since I don't know each and every nation's politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose If mere membership of the US House is a "high-ranking office of power" for ITN-RD purposes, then (I'm a banana) membership of every national legislature is a high-ranking office of power for DC#1, which is certainly not what ITN-RD is for. BencherliteTalk 18:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But how many legislators die in office? I would've opposed Nunnellee if he wasn't in office at the time of death. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Six UK MPs have died in the present parliament. I would have opposed all of them for RD because simply being an MP is not a "high-ranking office of power" either. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria; Congressman is not a high office of power.  Speaker of the House, maybe(if sitting), but not a Congressman. Has only been in office since 2011; no notable legislation passed. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how Congress isn't a "high office". Speaker is a "super high office", if such a terminology exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We simply don't report the death of every member of a high-powered parliamentary body simply because they belong to it, unless they are notable for other reasons. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case we should change DC#1, because that's exactly what it says.– Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "High office of power" would be a head of state or head of government, the leader of a Legislature(Speaker of the House, as I stated) or a member of a national legislature with some sort of notable accomplishment. A two-term congressman with no notable legislative achievements or influence is not a "high office of power". 331dot (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that he was a back bencher, but I don't see that as indicative of the office. Congress is, to me, a "high office of power" no matter where one ranks within it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c) No, it doesn't. You are simply in the minority (at present) in thinking that "member of the US House of Representatives" = "high-ranking office of power".  He had no power himself.  At most, he was a low-ranking person of little individual note in a body that has some power within a system of checks and balances.  He had no high rank beyond that shared with hundreds of others in the House (and membership of the House isn't all that high in the US order of precedence either) and thousands, nay, tens of thousands world-wide in similar positions.  This is not what RD is for. BencherliteTalk 18:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It does appear I'm in the minority in this particular thread. Individual congresspeople have plenty of power on their own right, even if not passing legislation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post the deaths of every sitting member of every parliament in the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Assisted suicide in Canada

 * Oppose From scanning that article quickly, it seems this has been going on for awhile and it wasn't clear that this vote wasn't really a watershed moment in the topic. Busy Moose (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment to note that the article needs copy-editing and improved formatting, especially related to naming/organization of sections. It would also help article quality if a suitable image can be found for the article. Beyond quality concerns, I think that this event is notable enough for ITN, and is an interesting subject. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur that the article needs improvement, and I would need help with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support upon article improvement; I don't think this is that common a national view worldwide and it seems notable. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - after improvements. clearly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that it might be a good idea to change the target article to Carter v. Canada, since it seems to be more specifically about this recent development. Everymorning   talk  03:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. The article didn't exist when I nominated this item. I've changed the bolded article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good development, but the problem remains that PAS has not been legalized, merely a law has been found unconstitutional. What we need to wait for is passage of the Nov 2014 Bill, or some other law.  This decision has been stayed for an entire year, on expectation of parliamentary action. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Habib Essid

 * Comment The word finally in the blurb seems biased. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No bias intended though. The word "finally" simply refers to the incredible complicated and lengthy negotiation process. It can be left out though if that's preferred. --PanchoS (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd take it out. It reads like WP:EDITORIALIZING, and you're giving the timeframe so we can infer it was a drawn out process. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, I took it out. --PanchoS (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Silk Road Trial

 * Support on significance, however I think the article needs more of an update before posting. I'll see if I can get something together in the next hour or so.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Scratch that; I think the article's in good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment I would be tempted if we knew his sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's interesting why there's such a delay between conviction and sentencing (almost three months). Brandmeistertalk  16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can't comment on the American system, but not at all unusual in the Australian system, especially in circumstances where time is required to prepare psychiatric and other reports from specialists. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - The conviction is the "in the news" part. The sentencing will be a footnote somewhere down the road. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Unsure, I actually never heard about it. Doesn't seem to be a big thing outside the anglophone world, but if it's important there, then I certainly won't object. --PanchoS (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Query: 'found guilty on seven counts' of what? It's not even clear from the blurb that this is a criminal prosecution. How about 'drug dealing charges'? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good question and I deliberately left it off the blurb. It's basically 3 counts of drug offenses, 1 of running a continuing criminal enterprise, then it's computer hacking, money laundering and distributing false IDs.  Couldn't really see how to work all that into a blurb.  I also wondered whether to put his internet pseudoname into the blurb as that's been a key part of the prosecution.  To prompt further discussion I've put up an alt blurb that's a little bit expanded.  CaptRik (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "drug trafficking and fraud-related charges"? --M ASEM (t) 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Michelangelo Bronzes

 * Support on the condition that these be made the target of a separate article from the Museum. I believe the paper is still to be published? In any case, enough can be said that we can write three paragraphs on their provenance, history, and the recent atomic testing and textual evidence that is the basis for confirming they are Michaelangelos, and not Bellinis, etc. Given the information that has been published, I am removing the "updated" tag as inadequate. μηδείς (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the concept, but IMO the blurb needs work. As written, it sounds like someone's just noticed a display titled "Bronze statues - Michelangelo" in the museum.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The specific bolded article should be Rothschild Bronzes. Brandmeistertalk  11:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Argee that the statues need to be the target here, not the museum. The articles linked are clear that the sculptor's identity was only believed to be Michelangelo in the last few months, which is the interesting piece of news here, not that they are on display. --M ASEM (t) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've made a start on the article, but this seems to be mainly about a timely press release by researchers associated with an exhibition opening the day after which features the sculptures. Not that I am questioning their integrity, but all of the news stories are peppered with "possibly", "potentially" and so on. According to The Guardian, research is ongoing and a release of the findings is scheduled for the summer. Maybe then we'll have a story, if we ignore the Harper Lee precedent. Formerip (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have a problem with stalesness in cases of embargo or peer review. If the primary source wasn't published, we couldn't refer to it.  The story is only recently breaking, and that's no problem. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We may be talking at cross purposes, but I'm not saying that the story is stale, rather that it isn't yet ripe. The work to establish the attribution seems to be incomplete, but the fact that the exhibition is opening has prompted an early press release. They don't seem, for example, to have consulted any external experts yet which (although my experience in identifying Michelangelo sculptures is, of course, quite limited), I would think can be considered an essential step. Formerip (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first source I read, which was the day before this nom was put up, was an example of the researchers(s) doing the authentification. They mentioned that a new carbon-dating type analyses of the metal showed it was squarely during his heyday, and that they had found a sketch(es) by him that seemed to indicate his plans.  I'll have to see if I can find this.  But if we wait, the complaint in the future will be that this is not new(s). μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Not only is there some uncertainty remaining over the artist, but there is no image for the readers. If a free use image is provided I withdraw my oppose but I will not change it to a support. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is a press release to coincide with the opening of an exhibition. The research isn't due for publication until later in the year. Stephen 02:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Stephen, can you comment on record that you will support this when it's published? μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose parochial story and the target article is not the point at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Mummified monk may be in rare meditative state

 * This blurb seems a bit facetious. I don't mean to denigrate anyone's beliefs, so please forgive me, but as far as I can tell, this fellow is dead. I don't think we should be posting blurbs about "real-life" anything with regard to this fellow, I fear. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose From source "Over the last 50 years there are said to have been 40 such cases in India involving meditating Tibetan monks." This is infrequent, but not rare. If it turns out that scientists affirm that the monk had been able to achieve this state, that might be something, but this seems running on early speculation. --M ASEM (t) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He really doesn't look too lively. Those cars really are cramped, aren't they. But am refusing to make any jokes about a black market in llamas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I usually have more explanatory rationales than this, but what? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A curious story, but all the news I've seen seems to indicate that the 'meditative trance' is exactly equivalent to 'dead'.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rgloucester and Masem. Fascinating, but unless this chap is actually meditating (and he, um, looks a little desiccated to be doing that) then it's not that big a piece of news. Maybe we could have a new "Not Recent Deaths" category? :) Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat  10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Boko Haram

 * Support- This is a huge operation, certainly notable.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, a very large multi-national operation. The biggest attack on Boko Haram in quite a while, so this is definitely a significant event. "Are" instead of "were" would probably be a better wording, though. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think of a stand alone article for the incident. - The Herald (here I am) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*Weak Support I also think the operation by the African Union against Boko Haram, in which this success lies, should get an own article. Then the blurb should be changed. For one and most importantly, the soldies were not killed in Chad but in Nigeria (See: ). I have entered an alternate blurb above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How much of a dent does this make in their total operation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – they weren't killed in Chad but in Nigeria. I understand it was Gamboru as per the BBC. Ali Fazal (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but as of now the update is "On 4 February Chad army killed over 200 Boko Haram militants." and that ain't enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle – Favor sense of Altblurb, but looks like it might be a trifle longish. Could say, "An African-Union-led operation kills...." Sca (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then again, that would not really give Chad the credit they deserve. Let's face it: When was the last time YOU heard something about Chad? ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In November 2000. Sca (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support – definitely notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing: Boko Haram Considering the recent raid in Cameroon, possibly with 100+ deaths, I think this warrants for an Ongoing link rather than a blurb. There are too many incidents involving Boko Haram these days and we can't keep posting them all. The article is well updated and I think it is good to go. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree with this Boko Haram has been unfortunately rather busy lately. SeraV (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider me a supporter of Ongoing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅ Posted to ongoing -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] TransAsia Airways Flight 235

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

There's no mention of the death toll in the prose. If that's fixed, I'll post because the article is in a decent condition for such a recent event and because (despite relatively little support so far), precedent suggests that multi-fatality plane crashes are almost always posted. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?  14:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - toll now at least 25. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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

RD: Mary Healy

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

[posted] RD: Charlie Sifford

 * Support. The recognition he has gotten (Hall of Fame, Medal of Freedom, etc) would seem to indicate he is important to golf. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and 331dot. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose according to the "major wins" section of his article, the best he ever did was tie for 21st place in the US Open. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - breakthrough player who paved the way for others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Paved the way? Did he win various lawsuits?  Lead protest marches?  Good for him for what he accomplished, but being born black in a certain time is not an accomplishment, and honoring a middling player is a rather grotesque and patronising sort of self-gratification for the people conveying honors. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tiger Woods said if it weren't for Sifford, he wouldn't be a pro golfer today. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One can disagree with the reason that he got the honors he did, but that doesn't change the fact that he got them and is considered important by people like Woods. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose not top of his field by any means, article is poor too. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The criteria is "very important" to the field, not "top of" the field. He doesn't have to be the greatest golfer to be important. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support They don't give out the Presidential Medal of Freedom (America's highest civilian honor) to just anybody. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have an ITNR specifically for RD if just being awarded the PMoF is sufficient to be posted to RD? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea to me. Everymorning   talk  12:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably is. That way we could avoid this opposition for someone who broke the golf color barrier, who won the PMoF, was inducted in the World Golf Hall of Fame, and inspired Tiger Woods, all of which clearly indicates his importance in the field. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sticking to the point, it would useful if you started a discussion on this at WT:ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

It's quite obvious that we are nominating Sifford because he was the first black to compete in various competitions, not because he did best in them. Is there anyone who denies he is being praised as the first Black who happened to be X, rather that the first who happened to be a black X? If so, he has no notability in his field of "ethnicity". This obsession with affirmative action is an American one, and one that should have ended forever when Oprah, Cosby, and Michael Jackson were the richest paid people in America, if not in 2008. Just as we have stopped accepting every first gay X nominations on that basis alone, we need to stop patronising first black X nominations as well. In the meantime we've had black nobel prize winners, black mayors, governors and kings, black writers, actors and scientists. It is truly an embarrassing and patronising corruption if we think we need to nominate first black...middling golf player who never won a minor tournament. Shame! μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a fairly recent trend of the far right to belittle accomplishments by non-white people in the old days, long before there were any Oprahs on the scene. That trend is the actual "patronizing" - a segment of the white population trying to pretend that everything was always hunky-dory for non-whites except maybe for a few inconveniences, and that there's no maltreatment of minorities today. The fact that Sifford broke the color line in the PGA was a significant achievement, whether he became a tournament champion or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Medeis, it sounds like you're trying to say racism is over. It is not. It is also important to recognize the pioneers who have helped to level the playing field, though it isn't fully level yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Note from Admin: Based on weight of arguments, consensus seems that this is significant enough to post to RD. The problem is the article quality is not in any shape to post.  The article would need to be expanded (a lot of the stuff people posted above as to WHY he's so significant is not in the article for example) and the quality of referencing would need to be stepped up.  I'd be ready to post this if someone who wants it posted would get the article up to snuff.  Thanks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mind checking my work to see if I've expanded it sufficiently? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] US Military Suicide prevention act

 * I've moved this nomination to this section of the page; it was placed under the 'suggestions' header by Fgnievinski without date information, so I'm not even sure it goes here.  Also needs sources, explanation and other information.  Either way personally I oppose as the routine passing of a national law without any explanation as to its significance or sources indicating it is in the news(very little came up when I googled the bill title). 331dot (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I can't see that this is actually in the news. Also note that the article is at United States military veteran suicide epidemic, Suicide in the military is a redirect I've just nominated for discussion at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is and has been in the political news the past few months, the event is not significant or surprising. The bill would have passed last year had it not been for one objecting senator, and by all accounts it was going to pass unanimously this year. Just an extension and minor adjustments to a previously little-known program. Though, I am surprised that there is not an article for this yet - with the level of partisanship in congress, this will likely be the only successful bill this session. Mamyles (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target article doesn't treat the topic on a world-wide basis, it simply assumes the existence of the phenomenon, yet admits the study on which it is based does not correct for age or gender. (For example, men outnumber women 4 to 1 in the military, yet men constitute just under half of the US population. Men also account (according to the article) for 97% of all suicides.  Hence the fact the military rates are double that of the general population is hardly surprising, as it can be entirely explained by the sex ratio of the populations.  In fact, military men do better than the population as a whole, since they are killing themselves at half the rate their sex predicts, assuming the above data is correct.)  No comparison is made to other active militaries worldwide.  No comparison is made to other jobs like police, firemen, or even dentists and investment bankers or violent criminals or their victims.  I won't be contentious by doing so, but the article should be tagged for POV, US-centeredness, and MOS. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Valhalla train crash

 * Oppose Not deadly enough. Neljack (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's nearly twice as deadly as Metro North's December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, which was posted. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Mjroots, you're mistaken; according to In_the_news/Candidates/December_2013 it was not posted.  Spencer T♦ C 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes, my mistake, it made DYK. Looking though it won't get posted anyway. No matter; you win some, you lose some. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose Obviously sad news, but it's local news. Not significant. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 10:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSLOCAL is not a valid oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is a valid reason to oppose postings to ITN, if not for deletion. This is not about notability, but about encyclopaedic significance and appearance on the front page of the encylopaedia. Parochial events of little wider interest rarely belong on the front page of Wikipedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly valid oppose as we're discussing the merits of posting this in ITN, not the merits of the article existing. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat  10:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Local transit accident; MetroNorth also seems to have had many problems recently which this reflects. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Fatal train crashes in major economies with well-developed, safe transport systems are relatively rare, and certainly in Britain they're investigated thoroughly and some sort of safety improvement usually results. I imagine that's the same in the States? HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?  14:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, quite rare, and it's been getting a decent amount of coverage. I imagine that's the same in the States? Correct. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Deadliest train crash in the US in 6 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the above IP. Mamyles (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Two of the three opposes fail NOTLOCAL, the third has been shown not to be a valid reason to oppose. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The complaint that this is local news is not about the fact that it occurred in one place--that's by definition in a car accident--nor that the place where it occurred is unimportant. The problem is the level of coverage. Local half-hour evening news in the NYC area will have a several-minute segment on this.  National broadcast news will have a 15 or at most 30 second segment on it.  I expect that if foreign news broadcasts have an "Around the world in 60 seconds" segment like we do in the US they may have a 5-10 second segment on it. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's had a lot more that 30 seconds on the BBC News (UK) at lunchtime. Expect it will be mentioned on the ITV early evening news. Sky also covering it. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is no longer "ready". The consensus is split. --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose this is a "mere" (not to be too blunt) traffic accident: a train hit an SUV. No derailment, no apparent criminal act, not notable people involved.  It will have no long term effects of the sort that are encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose- It just doesn't seem all that significant. There are train crashes in the U.S. caused by cars racing to beat a crossing just about every week, some with lots of fatalities. Also in India and Pakistan there are train crashes killing dozens several times a year. I say weak oppose just because it seems not to be relevant to the world so much as to the New York Metro Area of the U.S. plus it seems to be an open and shut case on who's to blame (it's not some huge problem with the American passenger rail network, it's people driving through railroad crossings).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Although freight trains may often hit cars parked on the tracks, this one with a commuter train and several deaths/injuries is quite notable. It is widely covered in the U.S. and even BBC. It is also the worst collision in the history of a major railroad service provider for one of the world's largest cities. Additionally, the June 2009 Washington Metro train collision made ITN.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The largest provider of the largest cities in the world (NYC is 24th) claim is a bit of a stretch. Look also at the 1991 Union Square derailment and the 1928 Times Square derailment, and the LIRR Shooting as well as the Malbone Street Wreck with 93 dead to compare providers and deaths.  Those articles include criminal acts and much more notable consequences. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misread my support. I never stated they were the largest.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose as parochial – Of no interest in the wider world, of no great historic significance. It appears that this railway has had its problems over the past few years. This is only another tick on the roster, so-to-speak. There is no reason why this ought be posted to ITN. Think of the encylopaedia. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor local incident, not point discussing. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor? How is that?--NortyNort (Holla) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a run-of-the-mill train crash. It has no effect of encyclopaedic significance on the world at large. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like train crashes happen every day in New York? No. It's not a "minor" incident by any means, or else it wouldn't be on Wikipedia. Epic Genius (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support - BBC thought it important enough to list it on their front page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What you have linked to is their World News section, US & Canada subsection. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support we've posted similar train accidents before.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We had 10 people killed in January due to icy conditions when a bus hit a guardrail that had been damaged in an earlier crash and flipped off the overpass and landed on a moving train. Not a peep here, and the story was gone from the headlines the following day, although the NTSB report came in recently.  There's an ongoing trial for a 2011 bus crash in NYC that killed 15, I am unaware that it was nominated or posted here, but I may be wrong (The article, World Wide Tours bus crash doesn't mention ITN). Seven people were killed in 2012 when a van fell 60 feet from an overpass and landed in the Bronx Zoo.  That was strongly opposed and not posted here. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose per RGloucester, parochial and no lasting impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per precedent. Epic Genius (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which 'precedent' is that? Nominations also should be considered on their own individual merits. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Other train crashes resulting in deaths have been ITN before. This is the deadliest passenger rail crash in the US in years, it has some merit. Epic Genius (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and I say this as someone who lives in the region and has worked on this article a lot. Other train wrecks we've put in ITN have had horrifically high death tolls ... tragic as it is for the people involved this does not come close. If this had killed 60 people, say, I might have argued for it, and definitely if it had killed more people than the 1950 Kew Gardens train crash, the deadliest accident in New York-area commuter-rail history. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Britain allows three-parent babies

 * Oppose unless they repealed a law that had made them illegal. This is old news medically, and we don't normally publish local medical policy. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The fourth sentence in the target article says: "The procedure is currently illegal in all countries."WinterWall (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is utter nonsense. This just means the article needs work. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was not illegal, why would they need to pass a law to make it legal? 331dot (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine since the British have single-payer health care the gov't has to approve. But in other countries the procedure has been done already. In any case the article is flawed, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to silly non-medical nonsense. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with single-payer health care or the NHS - people can pay for private health care in Britain, but this procedure still illegal for them. What has happened is that regulations made by the Secretary of State for Health under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 have been laid before Parliament. They would legalise this procedure (subject to certain conditions). They require the approval of both houses of Parliament, so after this vote in the Commons they will be still need to be approved by the Lords before they take effect. Neljack (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose It still has to pass the House of Lords. Neljack (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Neljack; the bill is not law yet. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's Just a Bill. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it is interesting, it's something I see as fitting more with WP:DYK than ITN (if there's a new article for the bill). It does not seem to me to be of great national or international significance. Mamyles (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a human being from the DNA of three people is not significant? I think it's too early to post, but it is a significant scientific story, whether one thinks it is a good idea or not. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a nomination for the first three-parent baby (created in 2000), nor is it for a groundbreaking scientific breakthrough in genetic engineering. This is simply a bill that would allow an already known practice. Mamyles (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a bill that would prevent an empowered bureaucrat from