text:
)
 * Actually it's not the entire notion by any means. Topolski was himself a world champion rower, he coached Olympic teams (including medal winners) and he coached Oxford University in the most-viewed rowing event in history 15 times.  He was a noted author (as evidenced by awards) and wrote for the British press for over 20 years as well as being a commentator for the BBC.  His CV knocks Tark's into the long grass. Tark led a college basketball team to one championship.  That's it.  The only crap that exists was that Tark was posted.   The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He was referenced, directly or indirectly, in half of the "support" comments including the nomination. Tark had every right to be posted, just as Topolski was. It troubles me that you can't seem to get past that little fact.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Tark didn't deserve to be posted, that's why so many people opposed it and/or wanted it pulled. I didn't mention Tark by name, we posted two coaches in quick succession, remember?  One seemed reasonably notable, but posting Tark was by sheer affectation; his notability bore no resemblence to our RD criteria.  It troubles me that you think winning one championship at college basketball equates to our RD criteria, it really does.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, Rambler, they don't even play on grass. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only two of the 8 support !votes referenced Tarkanian.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull, Daniel Topolski's lack of notability for RD is evident in the fact that, before his death he had like ten views a day, and the article is a pitiful 8,000 bytes. I would like to give a reason better than this for pulling, but I'm opposing based on what's not there. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus is that the article passes the test set out (" the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect"), and as for your other point, be sure to let us know when the RD criteria change to include "how many page views did the article get before the person's death?". Once again, someone is confusing fame with importance. Not everyone who is famous is important in their field; not everyone who is very important in their field is a household name. Post-posting support - given his coaching career, he easily passes the mark of being widely regarded as very important in the field of rowing. BencherliteTalk 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability is not equivalent to page views. That would really encourage systemic bias!  Article size, as long as it meets the criteria laid out at RD, is also of no consequnce.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, ITN should take page views into account. I think we should be concerned with making sure our front page contains information that is likely to interest our readers. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's entirely up to you to change the criteria. For now, page views is utterly irrelevant.  Your approach would reinforce the systemic bias that is so prevalent, such that we posted a college basketball coach who won a single championship.  And that was wrong.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull per AmaryllisGardener and also per my opinion that TRM's loud and repititive complaints about 'systemic bias' are the main reason this got posted, not because it is an ITN-worthy event (which I doubt). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was posted because it had strong consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was that it got consensus because others have been influenced by your complaints. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's because his complaints are perfectly valid in this case. SeraV (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I support TRM's complaints certainly in specific regard to the Jerry Tarkanian case and made my arguments clear in that discussion. I do think we're going to have to move on, but given the parallels between the nominations, comparisons were inevitable.  While I do think some of the support !votes were a bit charged here with references to the previous disagreements, I think this nomination was founded on very good arguments that have nothing to do with any US basketball coach--including a long run of championships in a presitious event and a world championship medal.  It's a borderline case for me but I'll support it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Leave posted. It's borderline for RD in my view, but the decision was made to post it, and there's little value to further debate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: John Willke

 * Oppose awful article. As for the individual, well.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article needs some significant work before I would be able to support. Nakon 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Connormah (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very short article with each of the first two sections receiving exactly three sentences between them. I am not sure he's particularly notable either, opinions of the man notwithstanding. Challenger l (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is in very poor shape and makes it difficult to say whether he was widely regarded as very important in his field, particularly as we are given the same obituary syndicated by three different newspapers (although that in turn suggests none of them thought him important enough to spend their own time in writing an obituary). BencherliteTalk 23:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] The Marina Torch

 * Wait and see - I haven't seen casualty figures or anything like that yet. If it's a significant, high-casualty event, then it could be suitable for ITN, but as a curiosity, it doesn't really rock my world. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Eternal" cladding"? Freudian slip? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose fire hits tall building, nobody hurt, nobody dies, bit of a non-story... The really impressive thing is seemingly how well the local fire department and systems within the building worked... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant and reported world wide.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As TRM said, no one was hurt or killed. Further, it is no longer the tallest residential building in the world according to the source offered. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM - the fire was dealt with promptly with no loss of life and minimal injury. --M ASEM (t) 18:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rambles. And thankfully nobody confused coincidence with irony too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not really something anyone would want to make light of, is it? Formerip (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose Relatively little damage to a tall building with no deaths. Not particularly significant. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Gemalto

 * Oppose (for now) Yes, this is major news, and it should go into ITN. But there is no proper article whatsoever to refer to. Once this is met, consider me a supporter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose An intelligence agency is trying to get intelligence. It's not surprising or unexpected, and not notable in the slightest. Mamyles (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A couple reasons: first this is "old" news only now just reported. Secondly, it is a significant claim of fault being assigned here to a source that while RS is not as RS as I'd like to see to state it as fact. (all the stories about it are being repeated from the Intercept's take. If this does end up true, I would expect serious legal action and that would be the point of ITN. --M ASEM (t) 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that we should not post "old news" is strange IMO, since we don't apply it other items. Are we going to stop posting about politicians being indicted or convicted because their offences happened in the past? As for the lack of reliable sources, other entities have copies of the Snowden papers, so it is silly to suggest that The Intercept would post something false when it can be so easily checked by other news organizations. The Intercept has a very good track record, no reason to dismiss them as "not a RS". Thue (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not what happened in the past but what is now - if it was a conviction of a politian, for example, the news for ITN is the fact they were convicted, not what was claimed to have been done in the past. And it's not that Intercept is not an RS, its just as not a good RS as the previous reports from the Snowden leaks. --M ASEM  (t) 17:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Let's wait and see how and if this develops further. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait and see pending further development. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1 and Mellowed Fillmore: What further development could you imagine that could happen. Everything significant that will happen has already happened, as far as I can tell. Thue (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The fact is, we know this is part of their modus operandi, per the Edward Snowden leaks. No new information has been gleaned here, and if people haven't caught onto it by now, they never will.--WaltCip (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I find the "this is what NSA does" opposes absurd - we know that intelligence agencies try to do stuff like this, but we normally don't know the degree to which they succeed. It is big news that they succeeded. Are we also going to stop posting athletes winning stuff, because winning stuff is "what athlethes do"? Thue (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as we don't post the results of every sports game, we should not get all excited about typical, normal, day-to-day operations of a government agency. Intelligence agencies around the world succeed at something every day. Sure, we don't usually hear about them, so this report could be somewhat notable to the field of journalism, but then I'd rather post if/when such journalism wins a Pulitzer prize. Mamyles (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we should get exited, when what they are doing is at least unethical and at worst criminal, it is absurd to claim othervise. SeraV (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you feel that someone having a different opinion than you is absurd, but you cannot disregard others' POV just because they don't fit your worldview (like because some opposes are not 'real'). We are here to post notable new encyclopedic content in blurbs, not debate what is or isn't ethical. Mamyles (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read zwerg nases oppose, it is not exactly full grown oppose now is it? Yes and it is certainly encyclopedic content to find out that governmental agencies have been guilty of breaking laws, and yes it is indeed absurd to claim othervise. SeraV (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Laws of any country do not apply to any other country, unless there is a binding treaty. Again, it is not productive to call others' opinions absurd. Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support if this is confirmed this is major news. I agree with Zwerg though, there is no proper article for this yet. SeraV (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "if this is confirmed this is major news"? The discussion here is to determine whether this news is major enough to post to our In the News section. Mamyles (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean if gemalto admits that this has been happening for example. SeraV (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose frankly you're an idiot if you didn't think this was already happening, not just in the US but around the world. Spy agency gets caught spying.  Big deal.  Move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Antonio Ledezma arrested

 * Wait until a court decision is made, or if the protests get out of hand. --M ASEM (t) 19:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Venezuela ranks so poorly in the corruption index (about 15th from bottom in the entire known universe) anything could be claimed against anyone over there. This is theatre and until someone gets sent to prison for 400 years, it's far from interesting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. — Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. Politically motivated arrests are a dime a dozen in Venezuela and countries like it, and unless it develops into full-blown rioting in the streets, I don't see the need to highlight it as an ITN item. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Jerome Kersey

 * Oppose - Appears to be a regular basketball player who had a nice career, but not really someone who stands out. He doesn't meet the death criteria, from what I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This never always happen..Ṫ Ḧ the fury of the nature given flesh 08:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything, it's more telling that the Blazers never retired his number. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose, not widely regarded as very important in his field. Sporadic career, one title, falls far short of RD requirements on importance. BencherliteTalk 08:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bencherlite. Some could argue an untimely death, but really not meeting the RD criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He had a solid career, but he's not the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose certainly doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He had a pretty solid career - but he really doesn't meet any of the criteria. No lauds, no awards, no influence beyond being a solid player of long experience. Challenger l (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Limpet teeth

 * Support. Well, "blister my barnacles"! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is propably not most exiting news for our readers, but it is important and interesting for us as an encyclopedia. SeraV (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Science articles have been under-represented here lately, and this is well notable to the materials field. Mamyles (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but most of the target article is unreferenced. Formerip (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but like Formerip, the article needs work before it can be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support but article needs some serious TLC before posting. --M ASEM (t) 16:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting news.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support this will give our readers something interesting to chew on. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think we should be showcasing "this hot-blooded little beast, the randiest of the gastropods" on the front page! Wikipedia is a family show. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But, as we know, a family also involves adults. Brandmeistertalk  18:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like maybe a sequel to The Incredible Mr. Limpet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Very interesting and novel! Also, fairly wide coverage in the popular press. Also, I'm guessing the above post is a joke (though Poe's law may strike), so can it please be marked as such. It looks like a legitimate vote now. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fifty Shades of Limpet. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel that the part of the target article that discusses that teeth does not explain or describe anything at all about the structure of the biomaterial or why it is so strong. People turn to Wikipedia to get a better treatment than the lay media that alerted them to the story in the first place. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I demand a refund. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Posted Stephen 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pulled, sorry, I went straight to the section without checking the rest. Stephen 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Get a grip, man! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is like pulling, er... Formerip (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the article has been tidied (thanks to everyone who helped) I've reposted. Smurrayinchester 09:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Battle of Debaltseve

 * Support: It's a solid article and it's a major battle (not to mention a major victory for the pro-Russian forces).Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment We have War in Ukraine as an Ongoing item at the moment. Could the result of this battle be summarized there, rather than post a blurb for another Ukrainian retreat? Mamyles (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, I'm proposing that this blurb not be posted. The Ongoing link should be updated to a new section in the War in Donbass article that summarizes these developments, rather than the current "Into the new year" section. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support with the new article. This is so significant that it needs its own article. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose should be covered by the Ongoing item. This is not that significant.  Many items have their own article, this is no different, but it doesn't mean it should be on ITN, particularly when we have "War in Ukraine" at Ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; not significant enough to warrant anything other than the current ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Given the context of the failed ceasefire and the general deterioration of Ukraine's army, this is very significant news, the kind we should post even with the ongoing item. Thue (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per "Ongoing" rationale. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as covered by Ongoing. Debaltsve is not even in the 100 largest cities of Ukraine.  It's significance depends on whether reader has read the entire cumbersone War in Donbass article, and how much stock one puts into ceasefires.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Debaltseve is a small town, but it's a major railroad hub connecting cities Russia has already taken, but which are not connected by rail. See the article I linked below. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support if we have a blurb saying "In defiance of last-week's ceasfire arrangement...." "Pro-Russian rebels force Ukrainian troops to retreat from railway hub, as Putin mocks cease-fire". μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment there's clearly no real significant argument here to post this as ITN, especially as we have War in Ukraine as Ongoing. The best argument to post this independently from the Ongoing item (which is the whole point of this) is "it's a good article".  Well, that's not enough, so we shouldn't just try to claim some kind of original research-based blurb here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just because there is a disconnect between words and actions does not mean that this event deserves to get a blurb on top of the ongoing item. If it is posted I would hope that the ongoing item be removed until the blurb cycles off. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, it's a good thing ITN didn't make a big deal out of the "truce". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing. We should watch out though. If there is major development in a peace process (and I thought at first Minsk could be a real thing), we should consider posting it in ITN as well (not hastily though as Minsk has proven). Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I've been following events in Ukraine pretty closely, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent to get into play-by-play coverage of a drawn-out conflict in Wikipedia's ITN section. If thousands were massacred, that would be one thing, but it's a strategic setback for the Ukrainian Army at best. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] New president of Greece

 * Comment From President of Greece, it looks like this position is entirely ceremonial. The Prime Minister has all of the executive power. I think precedent is not to post ceremonial position results. Mamyles (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but only if “elected” is the bold part. As Mamyles pointed out, the position itself is completely ceremonial. The indirect election, however, was held in an unprecedented manner (for Greek standards, that is), was instrumental for the current government to come in power and received much media coverage both there and abroad.--The Theosophist (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Changes in head of state are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the President of Greece is not the "head of state." The Prime Minister is the head of state for this country, so this election is not ITNR. Mamyles (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The first line of the President of Greece article states: "The President of the Hellenic Republic, colloquially referred to in English as the President of Greece, is the head of state of Greece". The PM would be the head of government, not the head of state. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct. The Head of state article even states that "The role and functions of the office of head of state may range from purely ceremonial or symbolic to the real executive power in a state." I'll create discussion about this on ITNR talk. Mamyles (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support per technically pertaining to ITNR. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "You are technically correct; the best kind of correct." Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: D. Ramanaidu

 * Comment. The article will need work at least to fix the orange-level tags before being suitable for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'm in the process of improving it. — Vensatry (ping) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked the editor who placed the PoV tag to revisit the article & explain what the problem is. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect phrases in the article like "Fortunately, as the film was a huge success" might have something to do with it. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * :) That kind of non-encyclopedic tone is relatively easy to purge; I was worried there's something more pernicious and/or less obvious. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose - dubious claims, improper referencing - I can't sort fact from fiction enough to tell who this person actually is. Challenger l (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is in no way of suitable quality for the main page, regardless of the possible notability of the individual, which is marginal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above rationale. Joshua Garner (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on article quality. I would have wholeheartedly endorsed on significance grounds, but the articles problems are legion, and we should not advertise such an article as "the best Wikipedia has to offer".  If anyone cleans up the article to a reasonable point where we'd be proud of putting on the main page, let us all know to reevaluate it.  Article quality should be the first, last, and only concern here, and this one is dreadful.  -- Jayron 32 00:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made some copy-edits and the article is adequately referenced now. — Vensatry (ping) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support You certainly did - not only does this article meet the quality standards, but someone winning a Guinness record for the number of films made in multiple languages elevates his status. This is clearly among the most influential people of his field (Indian filmmakers). Challenger l (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2015 Haiti carnival accident

 * Oppose an unfortunate accident (and I have read 20 dead) but the power line falling is not being reported as sabotage or having notable victims or long-term encyclopedic import. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on the contrary, I think 16-20 deaths in what is supposed to be a holiday celebration is something that qualifies for an ITN posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Mellowed Fillmore. Highly notable and an underrepresented country on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - significant number of deaths. A country that almost never appears on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I guess human stampedes aren't as rare as I thought, third one we've posted within a few months. Nonetheless notable. Mamyles (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am wondering if the blurb should be more specific as to what the accident was? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If we do get more specific, I would prefer that it say a stampede, as that looks to be the cause of all deaths. In fact, it may be preferable to rename the whole article as "2015 Haiti stampede". Mamyles (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Precedence suggests we should use "crush" and not "stampede".--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's the opposite. There was a real outcry at the use of the word "crush", many sensitive editors thought it was "disrespectful" although it was still 100% accurate.  Wikipedians generally prefer to obfuscate the actual cause of death and use the euphemistic "stampede" instead.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguable the situation when they tried to move the power line to get a float underneath, the live line fell and electrocuted those nearby, and in the rush to get away, others were run over/etc by the crowd. I think "accident" here is the right word because it's not just electrocution, and not just a crush/stampede. --M ASEM (t) 19:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Precedent is actually overwhelmingly toward using 'stampede' in our articles on the subject, for example of these none use 'crush.' Mamyles (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. We use "stampede" even though it's often inaccurate and obfuscates the actual events, to placate the more sensitive editors around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Lesley Gore

 * Support huge, huge white iconic singer of soul liberating music, Oscar-nominated composer, celebrity performer, the entire basis of John Water's career, the American Dusty Springfield. Watch this if you are too young to know her name. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Medeis.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support even though the article doesn't mention her lengthy post-singing college basketball coaching career. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Note that not all Lesbians are into basketball. "It's my condo, and I'll sell if I want to." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready as supported and updated, (and as unaware she was a Lesbian until this nomination). μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably wise to give non-Americans a chance to review. Not all of us are up at 4am. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready at that stage was absolutely ludicrous. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose I hate to spoil the party (pun intended) but I agree with Espresso Addict that this should not be rushed to the front page. Looking at the article there was one No. 1 song and a few other top ten hits as a teenager, and one Academy Award nomination about 15 years later. I think that is stretching the defintion of "widely regarded as a very important figure in her field". If I am missing something about how important she was to the music industry even after her star as a teen sensation faded (circa. 1968), then it is because such information is missing from the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * She had several hit song and one world wide hit song. That her star "faded in 1968" is not a reasoning to oppose. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a reason not to delete the article about her, not a reason to feature her in "Recent Deaths". I don't know why you've confused the two issues. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The user above claimed that his reasoning to oppose was that her star had faded in 1968. Then I claim that notability is not temporary. I do not see how you can confuse that really. I dont see really why you are getting involved either. But that is another story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several hits, and a former household name, but not an extraordinary career. Not at the top of her field as I'd define it. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Several hits and a former household name, you just made the case for Supporting not Opposing dear.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Patronising comments like "dear" don't help the discussion. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading stuff into a comment that does not exist simply because you are of a different opinion than me doesnt help either, dear.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not in any way particularly notable in the field of singing. No major awards, one (?!) number one record... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One number one record is more than zero. One world wide hit song and several known songs is more than zero. She has definitely left a mark in the history of music that makes her eligible for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware than one is more than zero, she is clearly not important in her field. Your opinion is noted, but you don't need to keep repeating it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Take that advice to heart my friend. Not needing to repeating stuff. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand most of what you have said. Time to close this particular nomination in any case.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Nowhere near the top of her field. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, famous but not DC2 important as others have identified. --M ASEM (t) 16:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Masem hits the nail on the head. Not every famous person merits a place in RD (and, indeed, not every RD-worthy person is famous). If the bar is to be set as low as one world-wide hit, or one Oscar nomination (not even the award of an Oscar) then the phrase "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" would be distorted immeasurably. Plenty of people can have a world-wide hit without becoming important, let alone very important, in the music world. BencherliteTalk 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose She's not near the top of her field by a mile, she's neither especially influential, nor lauded. I understand why she was nominated, but she doesn't fit the RD criteria at all. Challenger l (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Offensive the notion that somehow this should not have been marked ready after a full update, and 5 supports including the nominator, after six hours, as is normal procedure, because the British had not yet been afforded the chance to oppose her is insulting in the extreme. Gore's work was important as a performer, composer, TV actress, and celebrity, and an LGTB activist.  We've had the absurdity of the Deep Purple drummer being posted because he had a BBC special, and Louis Jourdan below was posted because he had two starts on the Hollywood walk of fame, but this pioneer in many fields is belittled for really no reason other than that her support is American.  Of course she's not Einstein, but Einstein would get a full blurb, and she certainly outranks two of our currently posted RD members in notability and public interest with no lack in article quality.  I suggest admins disregard most of the above opposes as irrelevant, to keep my remarks charitable. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore your bad faith assumption, save to say that it discredits your position more than it does any of the opposers. And I don't know which drummer you mean - Ian Paice is still alive, and the only drummer I can find mentioned in ITNRD discussions is an American, Tommy Ramone. BencherliteTalk 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we should publish any RD with less than ~12 hours of discussion, because there are clear differences of opinion associated with time zones. (The obvious exceptions would merit a full blurb.) By the way, one of the reasons I posted Louis Jourdan (after 18 hours of discussion) was your support stating iconic figure, known worldwide by anglo- and franco-phones. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that I supported, and am British. No voting along silly party lines here. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not near the top of her field. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and Bencherlite. A few hit songs does not make one top of the field. We need to set our bar higher than that. Mamyles (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] 2015 Mount Carbon train derailment

 * Oppose been, gone, forgotten. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Beheading of Copts in Libya

 * Yes, I had noticed the, "in other news, ISIS has a presence in Libya that nobody knew about until now" aspect. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support One of the largest actions so far by one of the most newsworthy topics, and as noted, now in Libya. Joshua Garner (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if article is expanded or merged into ISIL article. B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Different from the scope of the article in ongoing, represents an expansion of the conflict as well as a potential religious factor.  Spencer T♦ C 04:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Only focuses on tip of the iceberg.,, . The incident might better be part of a more general article. (The British alone lost 35,000 men getting the Nazis out of there in WWII).--Light show (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or the ISIS-berg. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as covered by ongoing. To address some points from above: ISIS/L has always been formally a Sunni sectarian effort, so the "religious factor" has been present all the time.  This is not even the first time that ISIS has publicized their killing Christians.  Nobody believes that ISIS is operating strictly in Iraq and Syria.  That they get support from various Gulf clients, Turkey, and have material cooperation with other Islamist orgs is well know, and you can go all the way back to their founding and see that.  So, the geographical point doesn't hold either.  This is yet another tragic and awful event in the ISIS story, but it is not a dramatic change in the status quo.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if this is expanded or merged. A rebranded Al Qaeda killing Egyptian in Libya is a new topic, not included in ongoing unless we change the ongoing pipe to "Jihad Worldwide". To adopt a recent trope, "Copt's lives matter too." μηδείς (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support To add Egypt has responded by bombing ISIS targets in Libya. --M ASEM (t) 06:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added it (Reuters). Sca (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Marking ready, article has been expanded.  Spencer T♦ C 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Blurb should probably be updated to reflect the political and military response; the Fact Al-Sisi's protecting the Copts as Egyptians in the wider world context is significant. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good suggestion, do you have any ideas for a blurb? I can't think of anything that's not too long.  Spencer T♦ C 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added an alt-blurb, and would be as happy with Copts as Coptic Christians, which I added only for clarity to those not aware Copts are Christian. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. The military response makes this particularly notable. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated blurb posted — <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am currently developing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya and I believe it should be linked in the blurb → Egypt strikes Libyan ISIS targets after a video is released showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians.. I'd be glad to address any recommendations you have for the article before it is posted. What say you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Louis Jourdan

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

[Posted] RD: Philip Levine (poet)

 * Support as meeting DC2. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Pulitzer Prize & laureate positions, once article adequately referenced (the Work & Awards sections are currently largely unreferenced). Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts on this, TDKR Chicago 101, but the "Work" section still needs attention. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added more sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support with article in good enough shape for posting (I'd recommend expanding about his works, but that can come in time). --M ASEM (t) 21:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support appalling that such a prominent person has such a weak article. No doubt as to his significance, the article needs work but it's probably good enough considering "modern standards".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember you wanted to cut back on the sarcasm? Does not help anyone. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You clearly misunderstand "sarcasm". My point is completely true and reflect "modern standards".  It would be better if you stopped trying to create conflict and started to act constructively here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment. Is anyone minded to post this before it goes stale? I think there's agreement that the subject is sufficiently notable but concern over the article's quality; no-one appears to be working on it significantly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted' — <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 11:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Protests over murder in Turkey

 * Weak support based on the fact that this is a really significant story in its context, per GGT. It won't strike to the hearts of many of our regular demographic, but nevertheless it's important.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, especially given the unprecedented developments of the Protests section. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support seems to have caused significant reaction in Turkey. SeraV (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Widespread protests garnering much attention, related to a significant issue in Turkey. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable protest movement with solid article updates. Someone should mark this as ready. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready, I didn't see any problems with the article, added altblurb linking to protests, since they are what makes this an encyclopedic issue. μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  08:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Michele Ferrero

 * Oppose But he didn't do anything. He inherited his wealth from his father, who had an undeniable impact on his field. "Heir" or "heiress" isn't a field. I hope RD doesn't ever come to accept those who are famous for being famous. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 17:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination, but I don't think being rich is a field- and the article doesn't indicate how the person might be notable in some other way. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Ah, Mr Ambassador, you are spoiling us." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Berlin Film Festival

 * Comment I don't think Golden Bear needs to be an article topic, since that's tied directly to the film festival (though obviously the winner of the festival's premiere award should be named in the blurb). --M ASEM (t) 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the way I used wikilinks there is inspired by how Oscar entries were made (with both the Academy Awards ceremony and the trophy linked). I'm not emotional about it, but definitely the newsbit should be ITN. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Taxi article is just about adequate.  ITNR.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR. SeraV (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Tariqabjotu, David Levy, Stephen, Espresso Addict? :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Cheers from - surprise - Berlin! ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted with 65th Berlin International Film Festival bolded. I have left the image for those more capable with such matters. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the image. —David Levy 19:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Copenhagen attacks

 * Support - Fairly obvious candidate. Joshua Garner (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support low damage attack but judging by the category, shootings in Denmark are rare as rocking horse poop. Add to that the deliberate targeting of controversial cartoonist, you have a story just about worth ITN. Article is just beyond stub, so all well. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Shootings are not really that rare. A few years back some rockers and immigrants gangs went at each others in a fight over the market for marijuana. Politically motivated shooting are very unusual, though. Thue (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support only if determined to be terrorism, which the police(while investigating it assuming so) do not know yet. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the Danish are counted amongst the righteous gentiles. I cannot imagine a better rationale than that. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - another attack by (presumably) coward muslim terrorists. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How are they cowards? Attacking a place with multiple police officers is hardly the act of a coward. Thue (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would label anyone using guns and shooting at unarmed people cowards, so they are muslim terrorist cowards.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose based on current information. If it does turn out to be terrorism-related, then yes, but this is akin to similar public shooting incidents around the world; it's tragic but ultimately not a significant event in the larger scope. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously it is terrorism-related. While we don't have the a court's word for it, the context makes it blindingly obvious what the intent was. Any normal criminal activity would not target a place with multiple police officers present with that kind of attack. It wouldn't be on the front page of the New York Times right now if they did not think it was virtually certain to be terrorism-related. Thue (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "terrorism" is thrown around a lot these days to tag things that aren't really "terrorism" to make them sound more ominous than they should be. It's a weasel word for all purposes. Yes, the intent was to terrify one or more people, but this is far different than what is normally called "terrorism". Technically, that shooting in the US was terrorism too, by the same logic, but it's not being called that. Now if it does turn out that there's connection to, say, ISIS here, and was purposely done for that, then yes, that's fair game. --M ASEM  (t) 21:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on now. Obviously this is terrorism. I know that "terrorism" is thrown around a lot, and that is stupid, but it is equally stupid to refuse to label obvious terrorism for terrorism. And I have no idea what you are referring to with "that shooting in the US". Thue (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, notable shooting, very likely that Islamic terrorists are behind the attack. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. "Presumably" and "very likely", to quote from two supporters above, provide no basis for an enyclopaedic response to a developing event. Until the motive for the attack can be more safely confirmed, there is nothing about it that warrants coverage. It is interesting that Chapel Hill has (correctly) not been posted on the ground that the motive as a hate crime or terrorist incident has not yet been clearly established. Yet we are much more ready to assume motives here.... --Mkativerata (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must say, the Muslim students were not famous, they did not draw caricatures offending Christians, and they were not hosting a freedom of speech event when they were killed. Quite absurd to make the comparison you have made. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The comparison is entirely apt. Your full rationale for support is "very likely that Islamic terrorists are behind the attack". At the time of writing, you had no basis for that view other than your own original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think after the subsequent attack targeting a synagogue, the motive as a copy cat terrorist attack following the Paris attack is clear. But, that said, there is no requirement that a motive be established before postings for in the news article content.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Danish PM has said it is terrorism:  331dot (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "We feel certain now that it was a politically motivated attack, and thereby it was a terrorist attack" from that article, to me, is very poor logic, because there are a lot of politically-motivated attacks that happen every day, and as such would qualify as "terrorism". This is the issue with sensationalism. I don't question it being politically-motivated but we really need to be caution at ITN about taking anything that is arbitrarily labelled as "terrorism" as such. --M ASEM (t) 22:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Tragic, but shootings with one fatality happen almost everywhere. I'd say even for Europe this is not an outstanding terrorist incident. Brandmeistertalk  21:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you still oppose following the shooting at the synagogue, the shooting of the suspect, and the massive international response?

 * Support - Current thinking is that it was an assassination attempt, not exactly run-of-the-mill terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems that cartoonist Lars Vilks was the target. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose As 2015 Chapel Hill shooting is not a terrorist attack so is this incident. Think for yourself and stop being mouthpiece of dictators and their proxies like CNN. Moorrests (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of your personal perception of this being a terrorist attack and our "brainwash" by CNN. It is a matter of if the incident is to be posted or not. Otherstuffexists is not a good reasoning either.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Moorrests clearly knows nothing of which he speaks, unless he's being satirical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * +1 Bugs and BQ. His comment has nothing to do with this getting this to discussing the appropriateness this has for ITN. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hope not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support The top story for me on http://cnn.com is "Terror attack in Denmark". I'm not saying ITN should call it terror yet but it seems far more likely than Chapel Hill where a neighbour shot three unknown people in a private home, in a country with huge numbers of shootings. It's already widely assumed to be terror. There has been a second shooting with three injured at Great Synagogue (Copenhagen). It's not known whether it's connceted but such shootings are extremely rare in Denmark. The first attack used an automatic weapon, also very rare in Denmark. I haven't seen reports of the weapon in the second attack. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been a second shooting in Copenhagen, though it hasn't been verified it is related to the first. This increases the severity and conspiratorial level of the incident. BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaKGarner (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two shootings, with the French Ambassador a target, in the first attack, and police wounded in the second, with a victim shot in the head? This is Denmark, not Dallas, (no offense to Texas), and the attack on this liberal, and righteous among the nations that stood up to Hitler on on Valentine's Day is a symbolic and heinous attack on freedom and human rights. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Can we dial down the soapboxing please? Thanks. --  tariq abjotu  01:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked ready, well updated and heavy support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose – Shootings are not encyclopaedic, unless they involve the deaths of significant people. No significant people died, and hence this is not significant. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * but they were the targets. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we clear out Category:Assassination attempts then? It would have been more clear-cut if Lars Vilks had been killed but we haven't posted an ITN story in 4-5 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support, people will be looking for this. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not that deadly and little longer-term significance. Neljack (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly know that? You can see into the future? Got any stock market tips for us? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. 1 dead is way below the threshold for ITN. That goes for spree shootings and for terrorist attacks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no death requirement for posting to ITN. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 14:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment: Removing "ready". Doesn't seem like the discussion has reached consensus.  Spencer T♦ C 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as obvious candidate. The shooting has grabbed headlines worldwide. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This appears to be a copycat of the Paris attacks, first attacking a free speech event with Mohammed cartoonist, later attacking a synagoue where a Jewish guard was killed. May just be luck that the fatalities was lower. These kind of attacks have a major effect on the political and societal climate in many European countries which are having much of the same issues with extremism and terror threats. Iselilja (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment it's worth taking a second to put this into context, gun attacks are extremely rare in Denmark, especially those related to terrorism. The low death count (three including the gunman) should not cloud judgement when it comes to assessing the significance of this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Not an everyday thing in Denmark, headline news around the world and article is in pretty decent shape.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb will need tweaking to take account of this morning's developments but this is a leading international story and is ready to post. BencherliteTalk 09:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tried an alt blurb, it's rubbish but closer than the original blurb... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The notability of a terrorist or any other type of attack does not depend on "body count". Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support- this is a big story and this is also a good article.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Gary Owens

 * Note - Very well-known in his day, at least in USA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose can't see the notability and article is certainly nowhere referenced enough for consideration right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see how he meets the criteria; well known does not always mean 'important'. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sadly just not notable enough for RD.--WaltCip (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As noted by others, animation fans are mourning, but the question even is begged if he was top of the field here. --M ASEM (t) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Another I will miss dearly, but sadly, he doesn't come close to the notability or influence criteria for RD. Challenger l (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] John Kitzhaber resigns

 * Weak Support Don't necessary want to elevate state level politics to be as important as national, but this is a rare situation. I would suggest that if we can hold off till Weds, when this should be made official (the transfer will be officially made) (per the sources), that would be the better ITN injection point, than this. --M ASEM (t) 05:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Run of the mill US political scandal.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 05:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Of no national, let alone international, significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no way to know that. In fact, bbc links to it from its front page. So someone thinks it's of international interest. That doesn't mean it should be an ITN item, as ITN doesn't cover as many news stories as bbc does. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right below "Are yoga pants really a threat to public decency?" --  tariq abjotu  09:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. State-level politics in the US is almost never worthy of ITN. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivial in the big scheme of things. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd probably even oppose if he was actually charged with something; only state level politics. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly more significant than the resignation itself is that Oregon now has an openly bisexual woman as its governor. I don't know if that's a first, but it's a rarity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Cristina Kirchner accused

 * Oppose The accusations have been filed, but that doesn't mean there will be a court date. I think in this case if there is a court date against a sitting leader, that would be a possible ITN item (when we'd normally do the results of the court's decision) but not before. --M ASEM (t) 01:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, let's wait, something more notable than this could occur, but I don't see the big deal with this. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 01:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - The headline in bbc.com say "MAY face bomb probe." By implication, might not face bomb probe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for events to clarify.  When something formally happens, we can post an item.  As an amateur news watcher, I think the inevitable result will be that she is forced to resign, either because she is guilty, or because the guilty parties make her a scapegoat. Jehochman Talk 01:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; the headline in the given article says "may" face charges. If there are actually charges or she resigns, either would be significant. 331dot (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How often do ACTING heads of state get real trials like this one? Nergaal (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What trial? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If it does get to trial, that might be something, as I noted, but this is only the filing of the paperwork. The judge has to approve the case and that's not an assurance or there might be something that happens before that. --M ASEM (t) 05:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the article is somewhat misleading. I still think that if the judge allows for a trial to start this should be posted regardless of the final outcome. Nergaal (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting a president on trial would certainly be a significant event. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, if there is a court case, that itself would be something to consider for ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 15:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As of now, he's only "seeking to charge," per NY Times. Light show (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until something happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Let's wait until this develops further, if it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John McCabe

 * Support but some work needed to flesh out the article and improve the referencing. He won the Ivor Novello Award for classical music last year, described in various features as "prestigious" or similar, and that plus his long and distinguished career makes him suitable for RD. BencherliteTalk 16:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Bencherlite, the article needs a bit more work. Otherwise a notable RD candidate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose He has two awards in his article, which are the only notable features besides a list of music he wrote. He was awarded the Ivor Novello Award once, which is given to about 15 musicians/composers in Britain a year. He was also appointed a commander in the Order of the British Empire, which is given to around 100 people a year. While it looks like he was a good composer, neither of these awards make a strong case that he is top of his field. Mamyles (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, whilst there are indeed a number of Ivor Novello Awards in different musical fields, there is only one for classical composers each year. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Val Fitch

 * Weak oppose article is not impressive but Fitch's Nobel prize and notable positions make him a suitable candidate for RD. Having said that, the news is stale, given he died eight days ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Steve Strange

 * Weak oppose definitely significant individual, all over the BBC as of last night (still top of the shared stories as of around 5pm here). Biggest issue is that the article isn't by any means decent and needs some proper referencing.  Certainly worth noting that he is variously described as an "icon" and a "pioneer" of the New Romantic movement, even by mainstream sources outside the UK. Others note him as "the custodian of New Romantic pop" and "one of pop's secret architects".  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose notability is based on his lifestyle more than on any artistic influence. μηδείς (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - mostly per nominator, but also because he has been described as the "father of the New Romantic" movement. Untimely death at a relatively young age. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose From reading the article, the only especially notable achievement I can see is founding Visage (band), which had one UK top-10 record. Founding a band that has one hit record does not seem to get close to the bar of "top of his field." Mamyles (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Medeis and Mamyles. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, an iconic figure in the New Romantic movement. But, if he doesnt make it, alongside those famous college basketball coaches, I wont cry. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the US this was called New Wave and there were huge Second British Invasion acts like Duran Duran, Eurythmics and Culture Club. Even Modern English's Melt With You.  But Ultravox (whose work I had on vinyl) was never a hit, let alone Visage.  Mr. Strange deserves his article, he seems to have become a minor celebrity for his misgressions, but he simply does not rise to the level of any of the frontmen of the era. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He was quite big in Newbridge, boyo. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Menya nye zavut' "boyo". μηδείς (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If only I knew what that meant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's starting with "many a night..." Does that connect with the subject's lyrics? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Translation: I'm not called "boyo". μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ... unlike everyone in Newbridge, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment although it's abundantly clear from third-party reliable sources (rather than conjecture and WP:OR) that Strange was clearly a notable individual, certainly notable enough for RD, the article remains underwhelming. Anyone who could help with that would be great.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability should be based on referenced facts and statements from the article. If you have sources that bolster this nomination's notability, please feel free to add to the article so that it is more complete. Additionally, if you see any OR in the article please tag or remove it. Mamyles (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In regard to your claims of notability, consider comparing this to your recent comment about having . This individual also has no notable awards, but with zero #1 records. Mamyles (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat

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

The article says he was born to a single father. Can this be clarified? μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed this somewhat; unfortunately I can't find anything about what happened to his mother and when. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support, seems to be an important figure in Malaysian politics. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 23:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to be important to his field.  331dot (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominatee seems to have held a governorial position, and that of minority party chief. We would not post an American with such a small resume, so I have to Oppose at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted, but it doesn't tell the full story. A Western comparison would be Ted Kennedy: an elected official for half a century who was the figurehead for a political movement (liberalism/Islamism). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support a sufficiently prominent politician in his country to merit an RD posting, and the article is in decent shape. FWIW, ITN posted (with your support) Mario Cuomo, a US state governor who was never even leader of his party. Comparing non-Americans with Americans is not an exact science, and I'm not sure that an approach which works on the basis of converting non-American RD candidates into their American equivalent is a good one given the obvious differences. BencherliteTalk 17:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw my oppose if those with more direct experience have a higher view of the gentleman, but the article doesn't convey his importance that well. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Another peace agreement on Ukraine

 * Support - a breakthrough in this conflict. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose – This deal is nothing new, and is quite weak. It is merely a slightly clarified update of the failed Minsk Protocol. There is no reason why the ongoing bit cannot handle this matter, as it already does. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have an ongoing already, besides there is nothing saying currently that this deal will be any more effective dealing with this war than Minsk protocol which collapsed. SeraV (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing can handle this. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can/ does Wikipedia collect data on number of clicks on each link of the Main Page? I'd be very interested to see the statistics. Maybe it's policy that an ongoing has to cover any news event. But I'm sceptical - regular readers will not be prompted to click on anything new, irregular readers may not even realise where to find that news. Does ongoing ever get dumped in favour of a new event? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not clicks but you can look at page views. An article linked to on the Main Page will generally see an increase in page views, which might measure what you're looking for.  Spencer T♦ C 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it seems unlikely that will be useful in showing anything. Not least as the peace agreement is not a separate article posted at ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose; covered by ongoing. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose & snow close, assuming no one objects. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't object, although 7 hours seems a bit of a short time. I'd dispute that "nothing saying currently that this deal will be any more effective..." is a valid reason to oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing untoward about this nomination. If something like a pull-out or a third party inspection force is installed, I don't think anyone will oppose either a new nomination or reopening this.  But this is about the third "agreement" that's been nominated followed the within the next day or so by some sort of horrendous blast. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Bob Simon

 * Support - wanted to add this nom the moment it happened, didn't know how to..he qualifies easily though with 27 emmys, a blurb is also a possibility..no?..article needs a bit more update, it really doesn't reflect his 50 year career and achievements.. -- Stemoc 09:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support if article is up to snuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the dead American ticker. Article has serious BLP issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What "serious BLP issues"? The article has references, no orange tags, and on a surface read appears fine to me. Also, "dead American ticker"... real helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's 100% accurate, don't you, especially considering the next two RDs lined up are yet more dead Americans? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think comments like these are nonconstructive. We can't help that there's been a run of Americans dying who meet RD criteria. If you want to break it up, nominate some worthy non-Americans. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, many of them don't meet the criteria, yet the consensus being mainly American and the posting admins being mainly American means we're inundated and hence RD has now become the Dead American ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that they don't meet the criteria, and I don't agree that there's a group of Americans pushing these articles. I think we need to find a better way of dealing with this than smearing each other from across the Atlantic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pushing niche fields like "college basketball" as being significant enough for the English language Wikipedia has gone too far.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the "dead American ticker" disrespectful nonsense. If Bill Gates died tomorrow, would you object to RD because there's been too many Americans listed on RD lately? And if Bob's no more important than just a "dead American ticker", then why does bbc.com have his death listed as one of the top stories? -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the "disrespectful nonsense" nonsense. It's a statement of fact.  Right now we have a mediocre golfer and two other US sports personalities on RD, we're about to sanction two more, it's nothing more than fact.  BBC.com does not have it listed as one of its top stories.  It has it listed as an American/Canadian story ranking right down the bottom of the page.  If your measure of notability is that it appears on the BBC main page, then be prepared to see a raft of dead Brits coming your way soon, since beyond that, there seems to be no real justification for many of these RDs, other than sheer number of US voters and admins here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On bbc.com, below the top top story, is "CBS newsman Bob Simon dies in crash". And I also check foxnews.com, cnn.com, and nytimes.com. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the version we see in the UK, obviously, we use bbc.co.uk where this story isn't featured at all on the main page. And is that the same Fox News who declared Birmingham a no-go zone for non-Muslims?  Sure, there's plenty of US coverage, no doubt at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't see any issues. Could you elaborate so that we can improve? Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support: if the article has issues, we should fix them. This is a wiki, after all. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. And nice rationale for support by the way.  Seems more and more commonplace these days to just !vote and not actually offer any rationale whatsoever.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? Your rationale didn't explain what's wrong with it, it has no tags. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * TRM: Err, the man won 27 Emmy Awards and 4 Peabody Awards. Is there anyone questioning Mr. Simon's notability to appear in the recent deaths section? Broadly, my understanding of having an "In the news" section on the main page is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight our articles and allow them to expand and improve. This line of reasoning seems to stand in direct contradiction to the idea that we would intentionally omit a notable recent death because of the poor shape an article is in. Linus's Law and all that. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps both of you have forgotten how Wikipedia works. When I made my comment, there was a CLEAR BLP violation, as evidenced by this subsequent edit.  Just because I haven't rushed back to the Dead American ticker to confirm it's been removed, it doesn't mean the objection wasn't completely valid to start with.  But hell, who am I to stand in the way of posting crap quality Dead American articles, regardless of such clear policy violations?  Yes we definitely should omit a recent RD because of poor article shape.  If you want to change that, let's update the RD criteria accordingly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support, very notable, his death has gotten very much coverage. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a notable journalist. I recommend that an image be found of him for the article, if possible. Mamyles (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Recognizing that the press/media is very self-congratulatory about itself, he still had a good number of awards from the field, so seems to meet our criteria. --M ASEM (t) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marked as Ready, since article is in acceptable shape and has strong consensus. BLP issues discussed above have been remedied. Mamyles (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Masem. I was going to oppose, basically because I haven't watched 60 Minutes since The Simpsons premiered. But the list of awards is pretty impressive, and it seems like he actually did in-the-field journalism. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Jayron 32 22:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Costa Concordia captain's conviction

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

[Posted] RD: Deng Liqun

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

[Posted/not pulled] RD: Jerry Tarkanian

 * Support Membership in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame demonstrates his importance in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Muboshgu.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose under-referenced article and do we suddenly post everyone who dies that's been inducted to the "Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame"? I guess with our new American sportsperson death ticker, quality and notability are both somewhat irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, never even heard of him until now, surely we don't post everyone on the BHoF. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you've heard of him or not isn't relevant. Nor is his nationality or the number of similar people to die recently, TRM, but you know that already. We can't help who dies when. His induction to the basketball hall of fame and sources calling him a "coaching legend" put him in DC#2. I agree the article is underreferenced at this point and time, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rambling Man. Enough already.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support, but the point is moot while the article fails to convey his impact to those not familiar with him. —Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking. I've updated the article per my support below.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per Muboshgu. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Meets DC2; very high win percentage, championship coach, described as one of the more successful coaches and notable for his behavior.  I also think it is important to remember that no one can help when people who meet the RD criteria die or where they come from, so let's please stop calling this the "American sportsperson death ticker" as there is no concerted effort to make it such.  Anyone who would like to see others posted, please nominate them(such as the Chinese politician above). 331dot (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Well-known and sometimes controversial figure in college basketball; a winner and perennial presence at the NCAA tournament. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I added new section summarizing his legacy at Jerry Tarkanian. He's in the Hall of Fame, the highest honor in the sport of basketball. His offensive and defensive strategies revolutionized the game. He transformed the UNLV from a small college into a national powerhouse. He took chances on players that other big programs wouldn't, which was polarizing because of their troubled backgrounds and their urban upbringing. He allowed his players to express themselves, and their style impacted popular culture decades before the more recent Fab Five phenomena; UNLV sweatshirts became nationally popular. Tarkanian was a celebrity in Las Vegas in an era before the town became the glitzy destination that it is today.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba (I guess that's easy to say). One of the winningest basketball coaches in NCAA history, coached the Runnin' Rebels to back-to-back Final Four appearances including winning the national title once. - Bossanoven (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support A pretty significant figure in college basketball. Virtually all major news agencies reported his death. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  02:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The text on his NCAA career is extremely paucous. The section on his granddaughter, etc., is twice as large. That's quite odd for an NCAA legend. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "paucous"?!?!?!?—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I suppose winning multiple NCAA championships must be our baseline for college basketball coaches. While this may limit our RD "pool" to fewer coaches, what's left would be truly deserving of an RD post. It's too bad Tarkanian didn't coach a big enough program for him to merit multiple titles, but that the way it is. – H T  D  08:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Best I can tell this gentleman only ever coached amateur university teams? Clear lack of notability in that case. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that American university basketball is "amateur"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tarkanian did coach in the NBA. Granted, it was only for 20 games, but it does invalidate your claim. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could point you to College athletics in the United States, but something probably gets lost in translation when there is no cultural equivalent. In short, it's a big-time business for college basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a university coach who got a sympathy vote into a club of more than 330 people when he was in his 80s. This idea that entry into a "Hall of Fame" confers immediate posting rights really has to end. It's a particularly American construct, with a not particularly exclusive membership. Stephen 11:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sympathy vote? Where on earth did you get that idea? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is your citation that it was a sympathy vote? In addition, there are 335 members of the Basketball Hall of Fame, which was opened in 1959, including players and coaches. Between men's and women's college basketball, there are 750 NCAA division I teams and 10,619 players this season alone . So yeah, it's pretty damn exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Tarkanian was definitely a very prominent figure in college basketball. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I wasn't going to comment on this nomination but some of the oppose votes are so fucking dumb I feel I have to. -- Calidum  15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nicely put. But hardly a suitable vote, a bit like saying "Yeah!".  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * note from admin I'd have posted this on support based on significance, but article quality is still an issue. Much of the career synopsis is unreferenced.  Please try to find references for all of the information in that section, and an admin can post this.  -- Jayron 32 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Only one NCAA championship--that's certainly not enough on its own.  He really was only a very famous figure on the national scene for a few years in the late 80s/early 90s.  His high winning percentage was in part due to playing in a weak conference.  I would argue that if it wasn't for that one single team he coached to a championship in 1990, this wouldn't be a discussion at all.  Unlike other prominent college coaches of the era he never coached an Olympic team or other international competition.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That one single team? The following year his team started 34-0!  His teams won like 40 games in a row. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * UNLV were so good that they were name-checked by A Tribe Called Quest on the fourth track of their debut album People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm, albeit it was not Tarkanian by name. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support He is considered a legend in college basketball history. His death made headlines throughout the American press. I don't see why his name shouldn't be posted in recent deaths. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A big fish. But a big fish in what, internationally speaking, is a relatively small and insignificant pond (US college basketball). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update Article has been updated with citations to address admin 's only barrier to posting at 17:55 above. Marking "Ready"—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks to Bagumba for improving the article.  -- Jayron 32 22:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, utterly symbolic post-posting oppose. I would advice a lot of the voters here to gain some perspective on the world and understand why this has no place whatsoever on the Mediocre American Sports Persons Ticker RD ticker. Oh well, a man can dream. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I could suggest the same for you, just vice versa; take the time to gain perspective and see why this person meets the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the point of contention, on how Tarkanian passes the criteria. Let's not even go to "it's college amateur basketball" argument. Let's focus on those two seasons he coached UNLV. He won some 40 consecutive games, but he was on a conference where aside from his team, there was only one ranked team, and that was ranked #24 (out of 25). He could had very much inflated his winning percentage at that time. – H T  D  23:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about the win's per se, which is why I have spent [too much] time expanding the article, ITN or not. He used junior college transfers, started a mostly black lineup, and recruited those with a checkered background before anyone dared to.  Tark adapted to his players, as opposed to iron fist coaches like Dean Smith, Coach K, Bobby Knight. UNLV teams were Fab Five before Fab Five in Michigan. He challenged the NCAA, which only in this decade people are starting to realize is flawed. Consider UNLV was in the middle of a dessert, Las Vegas was not the city it is today, and he turned a mid-major program (before the term mid-major probably existed) literally in the middle of nowhere into a powerhouse. Whatever your opinion of his style, it's pretty clear he has impacted basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no shortages of coaching styles in any sport. The likes of Smith and Coach K had far more success (and opportunities for success) than Tark. It's not like the UNLV were the first "Fab Five"; I guess that distinction belongs to the Texas Western team, right? The first NCAA basketball champs, Oregon (GO DUCKS) are in a middle of a forest, and while they didn't become a powerhouse, perhaps Oregon's conference was probably a little tougher than UNLV's. Smith and Coach K truly was/is widely regarded as very important figures. Tark might be "important", but not "very important". – H T  D  00:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Post-posting oppose and agree with IP and HTD: how many "college basketball coaches" do we need to post at RD? We barely posted Lauren Bacall who was known globally for works of significance and was instantly recognisable around the world yet we're here posting college basketball "icon" after college basketball "icon".  Really, we need to re-assess what is actually important here.   The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And how would we compare fields without being subjective? DC rightly don't have any hierarchy of field. BTW Bacall was easily posted, though there was some argument about RD vs. blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of that posting, it's useful to go back to it to determine whether or not this recent spate of US college basketball coaches will have the same long-lasting impact. I begin to yearn for the day User:HiLo48 returns to remind us all about the appalling and oh-so-apparent systemic bias we have here, so much so that we're doing little more than posting amateur US sports coaches every other day with the full support of a US crowd.  It's time this changed, and I regret ever suggesting to HiLo that he was ever wrong.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So then I'm not sure why you said we "barely posted" Bacall, since that's not the case. Systemic bias is indeed very real, but we shouldn't address that by ignoring the death of a Tarkanian just because Dean Smith died a few days prior. Same with Sifford and the other golfer whose name is escaping me at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We should address it by realising that Hollywood greats do not equate to college basketball coaches. That's a serious issue and until we address it, the RD ticker will remain the territory of minor college-level sports "celebs" who have no real impact outside their tiny sphere of college basketball, yet get great support because we have so many US voters and admins.  I would credit you and most other contributors here with the level of intelligence to see that on a global encyclopedia, repeatedly posting US college basketball coaches as the most significant people to die lately is absurd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of that is your (valid) opinion- just as it's other people's opinion that this man does meet the criteria and should be posted despite a few deaths coincidentally occurring around the same time. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem, you all still think a college basketball coach is as notable as Lauren Bacall? A reassessment is needed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they view Tarkanian to be "as notable" as Bacall. Only that they both cross the threshold as defined by WP:ITN/DC. In fact, the fact that Bacall was posted as a blurb and the unanimity in posting Bacall in the first place shows that we didn't view these two equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's entirely the problem. That RD would equate a college basketball coach to a Hollywood legend is absurd.  We need to root out the trash, like this college basketball nonsense, right from the start.  The fact that RD recently had two US college basketball coaches is indicative of the problem.  No-one outside the US college basketball system gives a damn, yet Bacall was a global and historical legend.  You see that something's not right at RD, right, or is it just about flooding the English language Wikipedia with trivial American amateur coaches?    The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From the "Please do not..." above: "complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Based on that argument, we shouldn't have posted that Malaysian politician either. And again, it's not a conspiracy that two legendary college basketball coaches died within a week of each other, and that fact doesn't diminish the accomplishments of either of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you continue to believe in the odd microcosm that circumferences your universe that you'll happily equate some minor league basketball coach to Lauren Bacall, there's no point in any further discussion whatsoever, you and I clearly have wildly perspectives on what should go onto the world's biggest online encyclopedia's main page. You can stick to your "legendary" minor league basketball coaches, and I'll stick with globally and historically significant actresses.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of one doesn't diminish the accomplishments of another. The death ticker is a yes/no thing, without tiers or gradation. So your argument that we should exclude certain people just because some other people go there makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you making up things to promote your position. I have never said we should "exclude certain people".  I'd rather just stick with attempting to acknowledge that a Hollywood legend is a suitable RD candidate, particularly compared to a basketball coach who worked at US college level. It's literally apples and pears.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what you seem to be suggesting, when you say things like "We need to root out the trash, like this college basketball nonsense". You're arguing that we shouldn't be posting these figures who are at the top of a field that only happens to be relevant in the United States. Since ITN doesn't discriminate between local and global figures, that some are apples and others are pears doesn't matter. The question is merely: are they recognized as being towards the top of their field(s) or not? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, the bottom line is "top of the field" of something like "college basketball" cannot ever be equated to Lauren Bacall. These individuals are not suitable for a global encyclopaedia.  You know that, and many of your compadres do too.  But it's all too easy to push them through.  Such a shame it denigrates the global encyclopedia we're trying to build.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Lauren Bacall in my life- yes, which means virtually nothing- but I take your word that she met the RD criteria. People can in good faith disagree about who is very important to a field or even if a field is important enough.  But just because you don't care for a field doesn't mean that it shouldn't be posted. Same goes for me. Part of our mission is to educate people, which having a wide variety of figures from varied fields does.  Sometimes figures from the same field die within a short period of time (how dare they) but that should not be held against the nomination. Instead of criticizing it, make some nominations. You just posted a Malaysian politician, for example. 331dot (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose and pull it is indeed absurd that people like this are posted here. We should have some standards on who we post here and if this man indeed does meet the criteria, then it would be high time to change our criterias a bit. SeraV (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's good reason to believe Tark doesn't surpass ITNDC's "very important" threshold. Unlike Dean Smith that won 2 NCAA titles, and more importantly, an Olympic gold medal, Tark's coverage of his death isn't as deep as Smith, which wasn't deep to begin with, unlike say, John Wooden's death some years ago. When ITNDC says "very important", it has to be "very important". – H T  D  22:59, 13 February 2015
 * I broadly agree with TRM.  If we post two college basketball coaches in short order, it's at least worth asking if our criteria are working.  Tarkanian is significantly less notable than Dean Smith.  Some of the arguments for Tarkanian were very trivial:  He recruited junior college transfers--is this a notable revolution in the game ?  Support pull.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, with our editing demographic, it appears all too easy to rush these nominations through without any real consideration to the actually notability of the field itself, let alone an individual's notability within such a field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * On what do you base the contention that there was no "real consideration to the actually notability of the field itself"? I certainly considered it. I think a sport watched by tens of millions around the world and that is a cultural phenomenon for an entire month(when even the President makes a show of filling out a bracket), and described by our own article as "one of the most famous annual sporting events in the United States", is notable; just as I think the same about The Boat Race. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel obliged to bring the Boat Race into everything? College basketball is not the top level of the sport, coaches aren't coaching at the top level, it shouldn't be RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no restriction AFAIK in RD about a field being the "top level"; and the contention is that these coaches are notable to basketball period, not college basketball. I bring up the Race because there are many similarities between them that you do not seem to see. The Race is not the top level of the sport, for one.(leaving aside the Olympics) 331dot (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And when has there ever been an RD nomination related to the Boat Race? College basketball is second-class and we shouldn't have one RD let alone two for coaches who coach below the top level of the sport.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That can certainly be your view, but it doesn't mean that there was no "real consideration to the actually notability of the field itself, let alone an individual's notability within such a field". If you feel that the posting admin acted improperly you should take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which was precisely what this discussion was about until you started bringing non sequiturs in like the Boat Race. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I responded to your consideration claim, as I state above, and made a perfectly valid comparison that you either reject or do not see for yourself. You were the one who brought up notability of the field. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure you read what you wrote yourself. We were taking the issue up with the posting admin, here in the right forum.  Then you started taking us down rabbit holes claiming the Boat Race had some comparison here.  Not at all.  How many dead Boat Race coaches have made it to RD?  I can tell you the answer to that, but it might be fun for you to guess.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a comment addressed specifically to the posting admin(Jayron32); just general requests, but if they're for that person, whatever works for you. You can certainly feel that there is no comparison; I obviously take the opposite view. If there was a dead Race coach who was important to rowing, I would support it. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from the requests to pull it with explanations as to why? It's clear there's no point in discussing this further, as I noted, the demographic here is such that college basketball coaches get a free pass despite being meaningful only to a handful of the English-speaking community and relating to a second-tier sport (at best).  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Lets look at what makes Tarkanian notable : He won one NCAA championship. He's a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, oe of 335.  He had a high win percentage in a weak conference . Is that enough ?  He was not a perennial contender.  He had no real notable accomplishments except one championship.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's really not enough. And if this BHoF is deemed sufficient to allow all dying members onto RD, we should get consensus for that so we no longer have to debate it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Have either of you read the news sources? The ESPN page: "who built a basketball dynasty at UNLV but was defined more by his decades-long battle with the NCAA"; "Tarkanian was an innovator"; "His teams helped revolutionize the way the college game was played".  331dot (talk) 15:1

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2015