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

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

[Closed] Under the Dome (film)

 * Oppose While this has a lot of views and is indeed unusual, I'd prefer to post reforms that result from the attention rather than the release of a freelance documentary. Though, this may be a good candidate for WP:DYK. Mamyles (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mamyles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support later if this gets awards. In the meantime, nominate it for DYK.  That's a twofer! μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's much better suited to a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Contrary to popular belief, China does allow some limited criticism, so long as it's the sort of criticism that the party agrees with (as here). Pollution is not a subject mentioned in the article on censorship in China. The fact that a film has used that is hardly earth-shattering. I agree with those above that this would be a better story for WP:DYK if eligible. Modest Genius talk 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Anthony Mason

 * Nope, not important enough. – H T  D  07:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose can't see how he was significant in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not a significant enough player. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose definitely doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm a Knicks fan, I grew up watching Mason and Oakley and Starks and Ewing. I have more nostalgia towards Mason than most, but even if the Knicks had won in 1994, this wouldn't meet RD criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

[Closed/Posted] Boris Nemtsov killed

 * Added a BBC source too. RT has picked it up too it seems. Connormah (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Grey Lady has it also. I suggest waiting a bit for the news to come out, and for the target article(s) to be updated. Unclear at this time whether he was assassinated or merely shot, and we should discuss whether to call him an opposition politician or opponent of Vladimir Putin, or both.  Jehochman Talk 22:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suggest this as well. I think a blurb is worth consideration however - a murder is unexpected, and makes nature of his death a notable subject. He was active up until recently too (I see some articles from up to 10 days ago of him criticizing the government). From what I'm reading it seems that he was one of the more prominent and outspoken critics of the government. His previous political experience helps out in this case too (he's not merely notable for his opposing views). Connormah (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support RD as he is top of his field as Russian opposition. I would oppose a blurb at this point. RD is sufficient, unless something more is here than a single murder. Mamyles (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was one of the best known opposition politicians in Russia for many years.  -- Ե  րևանցի  talk  22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Probably just the beginning of a major news story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD as notable, oppose blurb as undue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Changed my mind. Support blurb, as this seems to be a big story in Russian politics and it is fairly unusual for a Russian politician to be assassinated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as blurb only this is an assassination of one of Putin's biggest rivals, I am not sure what more can be said. μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Medeis. The article needs work on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - another Putin supported murder.... --BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD only – It seems some of the above users are making political inferences that are not supported by RS in order to lend gravity to their position. This cannot be tolerated. This is certainly a notable fellow, and he deserves RD. That's all he deserves. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about that. I think that his notability, plus the fact that he was shot to death are warranting of a blurb, independent of any political speculation (though I suppose it's difficult not to speculate on that). Connormah (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support blurb this is an assasination of fairly important political figure. SeraV (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC source cited above says nothing about "assassination". We follow RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person or political figure, usually for payment or political reasons." It is highly unlikely that this was an run of a mill murder. SeraV (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's speculation, i.e. WP:OR. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright but it is also highly likely and it is my personal view. Nevertheless the fact that he was indeed murdered makes him worthy of blurb instead of rd, our blurb doesn't say anything about assasination nor should it before we know more. SeraV (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the reports, it was a deliberate killing, but seemingly gangland style, so his murder might have nothing to do with politics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibility is there certainly. I just find it a bit unlikely. SeraV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support blurb. High-profile murder of major political figure, very likely to be politically motivated. I'm not saying we should claim that in the blurb but it's a relevant consideration when deciding a blurb. The top story in most tested news media, and the top foreign story in all of them. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Top Story on CNN now too: Connormah (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support blurb. Murder of leading opposition figure in Russian politics. Added a cropped image from 2008. Bruzaholm (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note according to al jazeera Putins spokesman says that "The murder bears the hallmarks of a contract killing". SeraV (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual hallmark of a contract killing being, of course, that you have a copy of the contract folded inside your breast pocket. Formerip (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! SeraV (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support blurb. The murder of a prominent opposition leader and former top politician in a major country like Russia is highly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Murder of Boris Nemtsov should be linked. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some help would be appreciated at the article. There is a user edit warring over the lede length among other things. Connormah (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support RD unless the murder article and the Bio article are merged. It will be too confusing for people to have to go to both to get the full story. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Administrative note: Once again we have an overwhelming consensus to post this to the main page, but the article is currently tagged with having referencing issues. Until that's fixed, this can't be posted to the main page. — Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article in general is kind of a nightmare. It needs a lot of work, IMO, before it can go up for ITN. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The tag seems to have been removed already. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. He was a high-profile politician and his murder is one of the notable assassinations in the country. --Egeymi (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I don't think that we should assess his biography to see whether he meets any of the death criteria for inclusion. The main news here is the act of his assassination, its worldwide coverage and its implications on the Russian and world politics. That said, Boris Nemtsov would have probably not merited inclusion for a blurb if he had died peacefully but this is a different story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted - Jehochman Talk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do we want to use the word "assassinated"? I'm not seeing it in BBC coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was assassinated. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NYTimes - " Boris Y. Nemtsov, a prominent Russian opposition leader and former first deputy prime minister, was shot dead Friday evening in central Moscow in the highest-profile assassination in Russia during the tenure of President Vladimir V. Putin." Connormah (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of evidence, NYT seems to have jumped to a conclusion. I don't think Wikipedia should perpetuate that jump. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not take a genius to figure out that it is not a claim but a fact that it is an assassination. It follows in line with Putins standard cowardly strategies. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It also does not take a genius to realize that no one has been arrested and nothing about the motive is known at this time. If it was a mob hit, for example, would that still count as an "assassination"? How does the NYT or you know who's enemies' lists he's on? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree here with BB: "murdered", yes, no question, but "assassination" is assuming that there is a political motive here. No question there's a chance there was a political motivation here due to Russian politics, but without an investigation it is improper to call this an assassination. --M ASEM (t) 17:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, several people jumped out of a van and shot Nemtsov four times in the back before fleeing. Not an attempted robbery, or a random shot.  I suppose we could say gang-syle hit, but assassination is what all the sources are saying. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no question it was a deliberate killing, but the motive is unknown at this time. The sources are jumping to conclusions without evidence, and Wikipedia shouldn't allow itself to get sucked into that. (And by the way, I would be surprised if Putin's not behind it, but that's strictly OR.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC doesn't say "assassination" at all (and says it was only one person from a car, shooting four times) - the article does postulate that there was an intentional political goal here but the strongest language used is "brutally murdered". --M ASEM (t) 17:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the coverage from ABC News, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN and USA Today. Of these, only the Washington Post declared that it was an "assassination".  ABC News and LA Times said it could be an "assassination", but hedged rather than being definitive.  CNN never used the term "assassination", choosing instead to mention "political murder" as one possible motivation.  USA Today was probably the least explicit in its terminology, avoiding the term "assassination" and other obvious synonyms, though it does mention that Nemtsov feared being killed by Putin or his supporters for his politics.  From that sample, I'd say the sources are not yet saying this was an assassination, though they generally acknowledge it could be.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Before posting the blurb I checked and found multiple reliable sources using the word "assassination". What happened fits the definition of the word. "Assassination is the deliberate killing of a prominent person or political figure, usually for payment or political reasons," according to our article's sourced lede. This killing was deliberate.  Nemtsov was a prominent political figure, and the conditions in the "usually" clause are not requirements, though they do appear likely given what is known. Jehochman Talk 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to post exactly this as well (but got edit conflicted). Connormah (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still speculation. No one has identified who the gunman was. That it was likely politically motivated is true, but we should be more careful than the press when the evidence is clearly not established yet. --M ASEM (t) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are lots of assassinations where the gunman has never been identified. For example, Grandpa Hassan was assassinated in Moscow not too long ago.  And a political motivation is not required.  Essentially, any killing of a prominent person that isn't an accident or street crime is considered to be an assassination and there are multiple reliable sources using that word.  Jehochman Talk 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How are we sure this wasn't a street crime? In time, I'm sure that the authorities will come down and say "we don't know who shot him, but we are treating this as an assassination" which at that point, we can follow suit. But the quotes from the authorities right now are only saying "brutal murder". It's engaging in speculation, even if all the signs point to a assassination. --M ASEM  (t) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The dictionaries I perused seem a bit divided about whether to label all murders of prominent political figures as "assassination" (which seems the be the definition you are espousing), or only to use the term for murders explicitly motivated by political (or religious) considerations. Given that the definition seems at least a bit fiddly, I would tend to give the deciding vote to the presentation offered by reliable sources, which in the majority don't seem be describing this as an "assassination" just yet.  Personally, I suspect it was a politically motivated assassination; however, I would still probably stick with "murdered" for ITN.  Dragons flight (talk)
 * The term "assassin" is derived from Arabic for "hashish user(s)", but from the beginning it was about murdering political opponents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 * The front page still reads "assassination", and it still is over-strong. What's wrong with just calling it murder anyway, which is indisputably accurate?  (Obligatory note that yes it probably was an assassination, but it was *definitely* a murder.) SnowFire (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed by Tariqabjotu now. GoldenRing (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cares not one whit about any disinformation spread by the Russian government that this was a crime of passion or related to Charlie Hebdo, or any other nonsense theories that are being laughed at around the world. Nemtsov was (more than 50% likely) killed for his politics.  As such, this was an  assassination.  Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, but there is no evidence that this was street crime or anything other than a political hit.  As such, Wikipedia will go with the preponderance of reliable sources and avoid whitewashing or weaseling.  Feel free to discuss and we'll see if a new consensus emerges. If some weaseling has invaded the target article, we should fix it, not propagate the error to ITN. Jehochman Talk 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is that the preponderance of the reliable sources declare this an "assassination"? The other day, I pulled five articles from the top of Google News and only got one to declare it as such. But for the sake of argument, let's try again. Stories currently highly ranked for "Boris Nemtsov" on Google News: The Guardian, CNN, NYTimes, Euronews, ABC News, Telegraph, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal. Of those eight, I find that three (Guardian, CNN, Washington Post) say "assassination"/"assassin" as a definitive statement, one (Telegraph) says "assassination" as a likely but not certain characterization, and four (NY Times, Euronews, ABC News, Wall Street Journal) says only "murder"/"killer"/"killing". Not exactly overwhelming. Personally, I think he almost certainly was assassinated, but with less than a majority of reliable sources definitively labeling it that way, I would still prefer to say "murder" in ITN. Dragons flight (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we have a bit of editorial liberty to use the English language according to its plain meaning. Sources might choose "murder", a synonym for "assassination", because it's shorter or more alliterative with the other words in the headline. Our blurb is short, and Boris Nemtsov has an s sound in each word, so the blurb reads better with "assassination" than "murder".  Given the level of prevalence you have identified (thanks!), I think we could use it or not.  Another interesting statistic would be to make a list of the top 10 reliable sources and see if they have ever used the word "assassination" to describe the Nemtsov killing.  You have NYT as a "no", but one of my links  shows them using the word "assassination" in the headline of a different article. If after considering what I've said here you still think it should be changed, please feel free to do so, because I know Tariq also wanted to change it. Jehochman Talk 14:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest someone just close this, but when a politician is shot in the back by assailants who didn't rob or rape him, and who had no sexual or financial connection with him, and there are a list of over a dozen opponents, like him, of Putin, who've ben poisoned, shot or killed, it's deliberate obfuscation to delete the word assassinate. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection to the word "assassination" in the blurb had nothing to do with whether I, or even sources, called it one. Our article was titled "Murder of...", even multiple days after the incident. As my edit summary said, it made no sense to use "assassination" on the Main Page, but only "murder" in the title of the article. The article name, of course, has been changed now, so I no longer have an objection. --  tariq abjotu  18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm the one who moved the article, so that's kind of circular. I suggest that if the article moves, we update the ITN item to match.  So far the discussion on the talk page is unanimously in favor of "assassination".  What I don't want to do is inflict my opinion if others don't agree or aren't convinced by my reasons. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was you who moved the article, but I saw the talk page thread and it didn't seem like you were shoving your position down anyone's throat. I realize it's often faster to just enforce an obvious consensus yourself rather than go through the process of finding someone else to do the exact same thing. --  tariq abjotu  19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Servando Gómez Martínez detained

 * support - as significant in the fight against drugs.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - was looking into this before the Nimoy news broke, appears to be significant. --M ASEM (t) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Although this isn't a conviction, the arrest is notable because he was Most Wanted.  Spencer T♦ C 21:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Question. Why is this being phrased as a 'detention' and not an 'arrest'? 331dot (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it should be changed to an arrest before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * CNN says detained (see above link). Everymorning   talk  22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess my question is, what is the difference (in Mexico) between being detained and being arrested? Or is there none? 331dot (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have the same story every three months, biggest druglord.... and he's not been convicted of anything. Meanwhile, in Russia... μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should stick to our usual practice of waiting for convictions before posting. There are sound BLP reasons for this - we shouldn't be branding someone as a "drug lord" on the front page of Wikipedia before they've been convicted. Note that the article refers to him as a "suspected drug lord", which is more appropriate. Neljack (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I tend to reduce my "presumption of innocence" when the person is in the habit of distributing recorded videos that aim to explain how their admittedly illegal drug enterprise is actually a benefit for the people of Mexico. Mexico, the US, and most of the news reports label him as a drug lord without trying to couch it as a mere suspicion.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could split the difference and call him a "quite strongly suspected drug lord". Formerip (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Quite strongly suspected drug lord"? Seems a bit like saying Osama bin Laden was quite strongly suspected of being a terrorist.  (Osama was never convicted either.)  Or we could just call him a "most-wanted drug lord" with a link to Mexico's official list of most-wanted drug lords.  With his capture, only five such individuals remain free.  Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, consensus is only to post convictions. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While that is generally the case, occasionally notable arrests or captures of notable fugitives make it through (like this one and this one). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose there'll always be a "most wanted drug lord". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Leonard Nimoy

 * Support One of the most iconic modern cultural figures in modern society. Joshua Garner (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: An internationally recognized and beloved figure in popular culture. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD Obviously. Canuck 89 (talk to me) 17:26, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. He has been - and always shall be - our friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support including blurb (Like Tom Baker, truly a huge icon in his field) The article still needs to be checked for tense, I have fixed some verbs. Opinions expressed in that article need citations.  I would remind editors that citations are not needed for specifically named roles for which he was credited in a film or TV episode, but his appearance on the Jon Stewart show, for example has to be dated to a specific episode.  Given that, I think this should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the type of case I'd be really careful for a blurb just to maintain integrity of the ITN system. His death was not a surprise (he announced he had COPD last year, and was in the hospital last week for issues relating to it), and while he is a pop culture icon, he was just that - great actor, great person, but hard to argue - beyond the level of RD criteria - of importance to include a blurb, as that would set a precedence for others. This is the type of case RD is perfect for. --M ASEM (t) 17:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue his long career, the fact that he worked until his death, and his hugely iconic status, without which English-speaking culture of the last 5 decades would be a little bit poorer, justiies it. He was at the top of the field in sci-fi.  Looking at the number of cameos, spinoffs, parodies, his own vital input to the role of Spock, he wasn't just that guy who played Robin with Michael Keaton. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I'd love a blurb, but I can see this case biting us down the road when any 'beloved' person from a field died from old age or other similar complications, arging blurb over RD. He's not Nelson Mandala, Margaret Thatcher, and his death wasn't the shocker that Robin Williams was (what I internally use for death blurb worthiness). I mean, take Joan Rivers, who was an RD posting despite having a huge fanbase and importance to entertainment (equal or surpassing Nimoy's). --M ASEM (t) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted RD, might be eligible for a blurb later on. Nakon 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article, as pointed out, is not yet in shape for posting. There's several CN tags that need to be dealt with. Please pull until ready. --M ASEM (t) 17:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather than pull, I have hidden those comments. (Someone should still read the entire article for tense, although I think I caught much of it) I will be busy but can get back to it tonight if someone doesn't fix it in the meantime. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support after posting - obviously good enough for RD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk • contribs)
 * Post-posting support for RD. Support blurb, though it's obviously less clear-cut. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He's an obvious candidate for RD, but beloved 80+ year old actor dies after prolonged fight with COPD doesn't feel like much of a justification for a blurb to me.  Is there a story here that needs a blurb for elaboration?  Can anyone even suggest a blurb they'd like to see?  Right now I don't see that any specific suggestions have been offered, and story of his death (as I understand it) doesn't seem to rise to the level of justifying a blurb, in my opinion.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious post-posting support for RD. Oppose a blurb; that should be reserved for when secondary effects of a death are themselves news (a major state funeral, for example).  If folks are concerned that he'll scroll out of RD too quickly, then please be more selective about adding individuals like amateur sports coaches (from whichever side of the pond). —Cryptic 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is 40 minutes a record? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC) .... "Insufficient facts always invite danger."

 * Agree that a blurb would be highly illogical. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We saw what you did there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD - major cultural icon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD and possibly blurb - He was definitely a huge cultural icon, but I don't know if he is big enough for an actual blurb, although I would not be opposed if this were bumped to a blurb. Andise1 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for RD; the Star Trek fan in me would like a blurb, but I'm not sure it's warranted. If it's done, though, it wouldn't bother me. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The eyebrow alone deserves its own blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose blurb Let's not get carried away here. Wikipedians are probably much more likely to be Trekkies than the general population. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Nimoy was a prominent and gifted actor, but not a figure of worldwide importance. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeh, right. That must be why BBC.com international has a front page article: "Star Trek legend Nimoy dies at 83." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Loads of stories appear on the BBC front page - dozens per day. They don't all get ITN blurbs. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support blurb: The "Michael Jackson" or "Whitney Houston" of his field. I doubt even Shatner is as revered in sci-fi. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ... even if his records were almost as good. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose blurb. "Revered in sci-fi" is perhaps not sufficient a justification.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb. Important in his field (acting), but not a major figure in world history and there are no major ramifications from his death. This is exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RD for Nimoy, blurb for Spock? Except, of course, thankfully he's not dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RD:Theodore Hesburgh

 * Support with caveats: While there are lots of other deaths on this day, Hesburgh was both prominent in his prime and popular in his later years. He had been considered as George McGovern's running mate, served on the Civil Rights Commission for 15 years until his dismissal for political reasons, and was involved in developing policy to curb violence on college campuses. The latter two are actually very topical again. My caveats, though, are that the article needs some improvement. Some refs are dead links, for instance. But I want to make clear that Hesburgh isn't just a recently deceased university president. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a story circulating at the time of all that 1970s activity. Q: What's the difference between God and Father Hesburgh? A: God is everywhere. Father Hesburgh is everywhere except Notre Dame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's completely unclear what field this individual was significant in, sure he was popular and all that, but hardly RD-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to clarify for you. First there's Hesburgh's contributions as President of the University of Notre Dame: During his tenure, the University's budget increased eighteen-fold, enrollment doubled, and endowment increased by nearly 39 times, and the University first admitted women. But his contributions go far beyond a humble Catholic university in Indiana. He held some sixteen presidential appointments, including the Civil Rights Commission (which he chaired from 1969 to 1972). He was considered as a running mate by McGovern. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal. He received over 150 honorary degrees (supposedly the most of any person). He was on the February 9, 1962 cover of Time. He was the permanent Vatican City representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1956 to 1970. He was at one time the chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation;. He served as an ambassador to the 1979 U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development (held by the U.N. CSTD). He was the first priest elected to the Harvard Board of Overseers, of which he was president in 1994 and 1995. He co-chaired the Knight Commission for thirteen years. These are only a few selections of the substantial influence Hesburgh had during his life. Much as Bugs says above, Hesburgh was just about everywhere during the prime of his life. That he did fade into relative obscurity in his retirement shouldn't be counted against him here. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds like he did a lot of stuff, but none of it so notable that, in my opinion, he qualifies for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Notable to Notre Dame does not qualify him for ITN. This gentleman seems to have lived a very full and distinguished life, but it seems fate and circumstances conspired to keep him below the leading edge of celebrity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. The nominator's statement regrettably overstresses Hesburgh's contributions as attached to Notre Dame, when his work went far beyond. Especially in the 70s, but into the 80s and 90s, Hesburgh was a mover and shaker in national policy. His contributions and involvement in education and civil rights were substantial (as briefly noted in my comment above). I admit, I'm not a regular here, but I don't see why this doesn't obviously meet criterion 2 in WP:ITND. Hesburgh's role in higher education, at the very least, cannot be overstated. That he held the most honorary degrees of any person pretty clearly attests to that. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying -- I just disagree. I don't see that any one of Mr. Hesburgh's accomplishments elevate him to the status of someone we would list as an ITN death. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd point out that being on the leading edge of celebrity is not a relevant criterion, but neither is sitting in a lot of seats an accomplishment. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Clearly a polymath, but equally clearly not a leading figure in any specific field. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Avijit Roy

 * Note, his story moved to the number 1 spot on the front page of the BBC. Also on the front cover of NBCnews.com "U.S. Blogger Hacked to Death by 'Islamist Radicals'" and independent.co.uk below the fold. Interesting because people are campaigning for the release of Raif Badawi, and the ability of bloggers to use modern technology to challenge conservative ideas is of global interest. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC positioning as first story must be for people outside the UK - the UK version is still a Labour Party pledge on tuition fees. BencherliteTalk 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The story is on the front of bbc.com, and bbc.com/news, and using Hola unblocker's UK VPN, I see it's the second story on bbc.co.uk under the "news" tab, after "germany votes to extend financial aid to Greece". -- Aronzak (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm at a desk in London. It is still the fifth story on the website and it is also the fifth story on the BBC iPhone news app, but the fact that elsewhere in the world it's shown as the top story shows its importance worldwide as opposed to the domestic stories that take the first four places (Labour tuition fees, Gary Glitter, Jihadi John and Lloyds Bank dividends). BencherliteTalk 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I could support this if he were a notable figure before the assassination, but his article was only just created after his death. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The website he founded, Mukto Mona was involved in protesting 2013 killings and imprisonment of bloggers - see Ahmed Rajib Haider -- Aronzak (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently his assassins thought he was notable enough to be worth killing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support- Got worldwide coverage. Google news search results 15,000 news articles. - Rahat  (Message) 06:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - seems to have recieved plenty of coverage worldwide.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Lots of coverage, good article. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Not just a terrible crime but an example of a trend of violent suppression of atheist opinion, and associated with significant protests. This is continuing to receive lots of coverage in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters without Borders have condemned his killing, comes during rising repression against journalists and bloggers across the world. The article should now be in better shape. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. It is certain that the event is not an ordinary murder. --Egeymi (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support has received worldwide attention (yesterday it was the most read article on Guardian), is an important issue relating to freedom of speech and the article is in decent shape. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RD: Earl Lloyd

 * Heard this in the sports bulletin on BBC Radio 5 this morning (the British national news and sports radio station, for those of you unfamiliar with it!) - and can't remember the last time I heard the death of a retired American (or indeed any nationality) sportsman being mentioned in this way, so leaning towards thinking that this indicates a high level of importance in his field even if his career was less than outstanding (I note he was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a contributor not a player). BencherliteTalk 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose the recently RD posted Charlie Sifford could be considered a comparable? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is a bit confusing. The NBL integrated in 1942. In 1949, after the BAA and NBL merged, they played one season under a color barrier. Lloyd was the first to play a game after that, when the joint organization was known as the NBA, but he was not the first to be signed or drafted. Instead, his team's schedule started ahead of the other three black NBA players at the beginning of that season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but it's just a death of another American arsehole. Do you really think that we should post this because he was the first Black player in the NBA as well as on the championship team? No indication that he was one of the greatest players in the game implies no chance to consider this to go on the main page.--Droneanddrone (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like two-thirds of your contributions consist of griping about "American shit" or an "American arsehole". Please reconsider your language. Thanks. Zagal e jo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also no requirement that only the greatest players are posted; it is those who are very important to their fields. You don't have to be a great player to be important. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Support - Pioneer, Hall of Famer - and also, to counter the extremely offensive comment immediately above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support He'll always have a place in the history books, and his death has received a decent amount of media attention. That said, his debut really wasn't comparable to Jackie Robinson in baseball (something Lloyd himself emphasized in pretty much every interview I read). Zagal e jo^^^ 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Baseball Bugs. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose perhaps the "supporters" have failed to read the article, but it has (and has had) a bright orange maintenance tag at the top of it for OVER SIX YEARS. E.g. the "NBA career" section has one citation referencing just a single fact.  On top of that, it has unreferenced quotations and it has nothing of his death other than the fact that he's dead.  In short, the article is crap and way off the quality we should be posting to the main page.  As for the notability of the individual, it seems borderline (as an outsider who doesn't hold individuals like this in any affection).  He won very little in his career as a basketball player and it's notable that his induction to the over-hyped HOF was not as a player.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Baseball Bugs --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is severely lacking. His college career looks like it was excellent, his professional career significantly less so - and there's nearly no references or citations in the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has said he should be posted as a great player(he is not in the Hall of Fame as a player) but that doesn't mean he isn't important, as the sources I posted state. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Boy, I really did miss something - first black player in the NBA - that makes him notable enough - but the article still needs a TON of work. Challenger l (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Support - notable enough for RD mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] FCC Affirms Net Neutrality

 * Support - I haven't been following this too closely, but it looks like big news and a landmark decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - An important decision.  Swarm  X 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - important.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a huge victory. Forbes says it's bigger than when Wikipedia (and others) went dark to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia going to be blacked out in protest against this as well? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Before we have a rush to post this, where's the update in the article? Would it be the one-sentence sixth and final paragraph in the lead of the article? What about the fifth paragraph of the lead, which talks about this vote in the future tense? Where's the material in the body of the article about this? BencherliteTalk 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed we shouldn't rush to post this. It needs an update. The section "Proposed 2014 US FCC policy" has an expansion tag, but that looks like it might be removable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards supporting, but first: is anyone able to give an answer as to whether this is the first net neutrality law to be passed anywhere? Formerip (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with condition that it is noted that net neutrality is not the sole rule applied to broadband service. There are, at least allegedly, hundreds of other regulations that shouldn't be glazed over with the blurb. Joshua Garner (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of other things the FCC voted on today that are aligned with the idea of NN (such as this also applying to mobile data plans, that providers can't block local municipalities from installing their own services, etc.) and these should be included in the NN in US article, but I don't think there's room to cover all that in the blurb. --M ASEM (t) 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How about something along the lines of "...as a utility, including enforcing net neutrality rules..."? Joshua Garner (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to the "including" verbage. Adding as alt-blurb for this and Isanae's suggestion. Mamyles (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native speaker, but the "including" part sounds rather weird. I'd change it to "...broadband is reclassified as a utility, which includes enforcing net neutrality..." However, this just makes the blurb messier. I'd drop "including" entirely. Isa (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is not right. One thing they voted on today was to classify broadband as a utility, which thus allows them to enact NN because that's basically the requirements of a service called a utility. They also voted on several other issues that all align with the approach they were going  - that broadband should be treated as a utility, however none of these other votes were on that specific point. So it's not that "including" NN rules, in this manner. It is not that these other issues aren't important, but everyone was on their chair about the broadband classification ruling. Our omission of these other points doesn't mean they aren't important, but this specific decision was the ITN item. --M ASEM  (t) 22:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the distinction is relevant to blurb readers. Only part of the utility Title II rules are being applied: from the NYTimes, "...the new rules are an à la carte version of Title II, adopting some provisions and shunning others." The situation is complicated, and stating only one effect of the rules (net neutrality) unjustly ignores the broader impact of this reclassification. Mamyles (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blurbs have limited space and this vote is complex. In this situation, I'd mention the most popular effect of the decision and assume that interested readers will visit the article for more information. I understand your point that this makes the blurb incomplete, but it does not make it inaccurate. Isa (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is important. SeraV (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose yes it would be big news if this won't be taken down by some judge in a few months. Unless I am missing something, there will be some endless litigation following this 3-2 decision. Until something like Supreme Court decides on this or it actually comes into force, I suggest to wait on posting this. Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is pretty much a sure thing that there's going to be a challenge to this. However, it should be noted that the FCC had has attempt to do this a couple times before but had to change their approach here (specifically the reclassification of broadband as a utility, something under their power) as to be able to set the NN rules, and so any challenge is going to likely be a SCOTUS case, and if and when that will happen, we don't know. --M ASEM (t) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not everybody knows what the "Federal Communications Commission" is. Can we get the country name in there somehow? Something like "In the United States, Internet broadband is reclassified as a utility, enforcing net neutrality rules for the service." Isa (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Added US to the FCC part, which should make it clear on the country. --M ASEM (t) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support due to significance not only within the US, but globally as movement grows to implement this type of regulation. I agree with JoshuaKGarner that it would be preferred that the article mention what Title II regulations apply here, as it looks like they cherry-picked authorities in this decision. However, I don't think that needs to be mentioned within the blurb, and I don't think that it necessarily needs to be included in the article at time of posting. Additionally, please link to the section for the bold link, not just the article.Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support provided the article is acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is lengthy but the update is a bit skimpy. I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit. But I agree that this ruling is important and worthy of a posting on ITN. Jus  da  fax   00:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Administrative note: There is clear consensus to post this, but there are referencing issues on the article that need to be addressed before this gets posted to the main page. — Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are sufficient sources in the paragraph now, anything else needed before it's posted? Nakon 01:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Section 5 still has an unreferenced tag on it. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the whole thing. It was written in 2008 and has been unreferenced since then. Isa (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support Apparently the regime has wasted no time in blocking many overseas websites from access to the US, in violation of the principle of no prior constraint. This is a huge, extralegal power grab. μηδείς (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which regime? And do you have a link? I'd like to read about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not the NK regime. The overseas sites being down seems to have been a glitch last night, perhaps due to the internet outage out west, the sites are back up now. That in no way downplays the importance of this huge power grab, the details of which the FCC is keeping secret from Congress. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * SupportMonopoly31121993 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support issues like ACTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership make US relevant overseas. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice, thanks for posting. It would be helpful though if the word "utility" could be wikilinked as utility. At the same time, the last three words "for the service" can be omitted to save space. --PanchoS (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Joshua Leakey

 * Support top honour and rarely awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom but also for the hilarity of the names of both the living VC winners..-- Stemoc 12:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's hilarious about them? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support article is in decent shape and 15 occurrences in 70 years, ten years since we posted one; hardly means we'll be overrun with nominations in future years. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to for uploading and adding the picture. BencherliteTalk 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Rare event, target article in good shape; Victoria Cross article is very good thus in line with our commitment as an educational resource. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Handing out 15 medals in 70 years would be interesting and relevant if it was the only medal given out by the British military. There's dozens of similarly "rare" events happening every day. Picking out this one just looks like standard military history bias with a little British slant thrown in. Shame on y'all for not applying a bit more critical thinking. Peter Isotalo 15:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an odd point of view. The award of the VC is rare as it gets, especially to a breathing human.  The fact that other medals are awarded is not really relevant here.  Could you provide us with, say, just a dozen of these "similarly "rare" events" that have happened today?   The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This needed more time for discussion from other parts of the world -3hrs is far too short. I'm not saying this shouldn't have been ITN, but we need to avoid this considering the timing and geographical topicality of the story (read: middle of the UK day). --M ASEM (t) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The result of this very recent thread shows that a little more time should be given before events are posted. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I'm not saying "pull", but it's funny how Brits often complain when an American item is posted quickly at a time when they're not on their computers, and then this happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well what are you saying about this nomination then? Is this just an opportunity to have a make that gulf just a bit wider, or are you actually suggesting this shouldn't be posted?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c with TRM) I have no problem with more discussion taking place, but please let's not turn this into a Brits-v-Yanks discussion, which would be particularly ironic when Leakey won his VC in part for risking his life to save an injured US Marine Corps captain. BencherliteTalk 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying exactly what I said, which is that it was posted too quickly. I also can't help but notice that it's not receiving any U.S. coverage. Irony re: what Leakey did duly noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the point again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What point is Muboshgu missing? This was posted far too hastily and anyone ought to be able to see that, whether they support posting or oppose posting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, keep up. The point is that it is a perfectly valid ITN. You don't like it the way it was posted. Noted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep up with what? Stop being so patronizing. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep up with the discussion. Stop being so deliberately obtuse.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It took you forever to acknowledge that part of the objection is that this was pushed through too quickly. Don't tell us to keep up. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It's amazing that you haven't objected at all to an item that I posted after just four or so hours.  Because it didn't relate to anything British.  Utter hypocrisy.  Do some research, keep up, and stop whinging.  Or go to RFA and become an admin and do all this yourself.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Believe what you like. I no longer care. This discussion isn't going anywhere anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Pull this item'. It is not world news, and it is a political problem as well that wikipedia would choose to rpresent specific countries military medals and not others. Demonstrates worse judgment that usual even for ITN. Posting it with only four supports and after such a short period of nomination is further aggravating.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be "world news" to be posted to ITN, as well you know. Which other "specific countries military medals" of this nature have been overlooked?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Post-posting Support per WP:NOTBURO. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull even the nominator admitted this was not a clear–cut case, so it certainly should not have been posted after 4 votes and 3-and-a-half hours, especially since no case has really been made for the international significance of this event. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See above " Please do not ...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." International significance has never been, is not, and never will be a standard for making ITN decisions.  It's fine to have a valid reason to oppose; perhaps the article quality is not what you'd expect?  Oppose for those reasons.  But complaining that this didn't happen in enough countries or "internationally significant" is not an actionable oppose reason that should sway admins to make a decision.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If what I wrote above qualifies as complaining, then the world has turned upside down. At any rate, I don't think this military award is significant enough for ITN and I certainly don't think it should have been posted so hastily. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You were the one who said "no case has really been made for the international significance of this event". That isn't required.  Thanks. (P.S. If you fancy it, you could picture this is a Brit risking his life to save an American in Afghanistan... doesn't get much more international than that!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jayron32 already pointed out that international significance is not required. I'm still not convinced that this award is significant enough in the UK for this nomination to be posted. Even if it is worthy for ITN, I still have a major objection to it being posted with such minimal input, considering that the nominator himself said it wasn't a clear-cut ITN case. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd. It's the highest award for gallantry available in the UK, and is rarely awarded to living people because usually they die in the course of their duty.  Your objection is based on not understanding the significance, that's your problem, not ours.  Read Victoria Cross, it may educate you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is also based on how hastily this was pushed through, but you keep disregarding that for some reason. If it is significant enough, great! But when it gets pushed through like this, the whole situation smells bad. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well your objection is noted. Thanks!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Post-posting Support. Rare and historic achievement. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull I've seen the word "parochial" used by many a Brit to oppose an American nomination. I wasn't going to say pull, but then I looked through some sources and I'm surprised that this is only covered by British sources. The New York Times and CNN don't have anything on this. This isn't a WP:ITSLOCAL oppose, since this concerns a British soldier in a war in Asia, but I'll say it's still too "parochial" a story. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Time magazine (which I think is American) and the Singapore News (which I think is not British) have it - did you find them? Clearly not. BencherliteTalk 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not have time to search every single source, no. Google News showed me only British sources, and it's still odd to me that NYT and CNN still have nothing on this. I will revoke my !pull, but still think this should've been an open discussion for longer than it was before it was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also now in Holland and Spain. BencherliteTalk 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull. It has no place on ITN. Yes it might be rare, but since when do we post military awards? Also, the posting was far too premature, this is what the Americans normally do, the Brits shouldn't be doing it as well! <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your perceived prematurity of posting, why would this have "no place on ITN"? Since when "don't" we post military awards if they're significant enough?  Especially when it's in the news internationally and represented a military award that is hardly ever given to a living person who was serving in Afghanistan who saved an American...  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not perceived, actual. Apart from that, for one, how is the 'saved an American' relevant. Also, Soldiers get decorations, big deal. Point me out when we last posted a decoration, of any country. The last thing wiki needs to do is cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society, it's getting to dangerously American levels already.... <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that "we haven't posted anything like this before, so we shouldn't start now"? Perhaps you'd like to modify the ITNC guidelines to ensure we don't post anything to "cooperate in the ongoing militarisation of the UK society" despite the fact this has nothing really to do with UK society, just UK forces in Afghanistan who act so bravely to protect others.  You don't like war, we don't like war, who does, but ITN isn't the place to try to right great wrongs.  You know that, don't you?!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep - it's different and notable. — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, given their rarity I would say the award of a VC to a living person is notable enough for inclusion in ITN. Bob talk 19:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull This was a) posted far too early. b)It doesn't belong, yes it might be rare, but that doesn't mean that it is in anyway important to us. c) does this now mean that we are going to post other military awards just because they are "rare". SeraV (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, find one that's as rare as the VC with its context and we should consider it. Do you have any examples?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Soldier gets military decoration. Big deal? Move on. Seriously though,, ,  , indeed most of the highest gallantry awards are just as rare as victoria cross. SeraV (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. By all means tell me when we rejected an ITN for a military honour as significant as the VC to a living individual.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, so we never should reject them then? Perhaps we should but it in ITN/R then. SeraV (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. ITNR has nothing to do with this.  Are you sure you understand how this process works?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I thought you were the champion againts systemic bias here, obviously that is only when it is in your interest. SeraV (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's User:HiLo48. Keep up!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But he is dead and buried (at least he is not here). We need a new champion! SeraV (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep posted. Significant awarding of a high military honor that is rarely awarded.  International angle only adds to the good reasons to post this. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull - Clear example of English Wikipedia Systemic Bias. There are dozens of "rare" highest military awards for various countries (see Template:Highest gallantry awards). The awarding of such "rare" medals, however, is not rare in the global context. The only reason English Wikipedia editors are aware of this particular award is because they live in the UK and are no doubt bombarded with it in their local media. It has no significance to the rest of the world, however. MoreTomorrow (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What's the US equivalent of the VC? I guess there is (less than) zero coverage of this story in the US? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand there is systemic bias but I don't usually see it described as a UK bias. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * it's usually considered anglophone bias, which includes UK. Martinevans, Medal of Honor is equilevant of vc in US. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Post-posting support. This is a very rare event (a couple per decade), of general interest, and the article is good. If I remember correctly, we have posted recipients of the Medal of Honor (a similar US award) in the past. I agree that the item should have been debated for a while longer before posting, however most of the pull !votes above seem to be objecting purely because this is a British award. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we really want to post every single highest gallantry award from every single country from now on. Because that is what we should do to avoid systemic bias here. SeraV (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not like these are given out every day or even annually; if they were, we likely wouldn't be here talking about it. If you have another similar medal awarding which gets just as much attention, I would be happy to consider and support it. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But they don't get as much attention, not in the west. That's what systemic bias is about. That doesn't mean that they don't get coverage in their country of origins or that they are somehow less valuable. I really just doubt that we would post Nishan-e-Haider here, or even that anyone would bother to nominate it even. SeraV (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's ridiculous. It seems that Nishan-e-Haider has been awarded only a handful of times in half a century.  Of course it would be worth nominating.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well agreed if this nomination is allowed to stand, but I am doubtfull someone actually would. SeraV (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you could do it, should it happen. So stop complaining about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Luckily I am not only one who complains about stuff here. But your point is noted. SeraV (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Were you offering to write that Highest military honour in every single country article? How else would we know what to nominate? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no. We aren't purely objecting because it's a British award. Some of us are more than a little put off by how this was rushed through. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too, which is why I said so. But that should lead to more caution in the future, not to pulling this item. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep posted per status quo, as I see no compelling reason why it should be removed. I agree that this was borderline qualified, and that it should have been discussed for a longer period of time; however, at this point it would take a consensus to remove. Admins are allowed to be a bit bold. That does not make this precedent, and that does not mean this short of a discussion should ever be done again for such a low-key, non-ITNR item. Mamyles (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull Systematic bias. wctaiwan (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which system... the UK, the English Language, the West, the nominator's, the poster's, or which? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anglophone / western world. The concern has been addressed above; suffice it to say I agree with those who think posting this does contribute to systematic bias, and disagree with those who think it doesn't. wctaiwan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * News stories that appear in the West/ English speaking world often concern English speaking people? Should there be a requirement at ITN for non-English (or even non-Western) news item coverage? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Note - Obviously an important award, but this might set a slippery-slope precedent. From the award's inception in 1856, until now, the average is about 8 or 9 of these per year. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Grossly distorted by 627 awards in WW1, 111 in the 2 years of the Crimean War etc - as the fact that it was only awarded three times for Afghanistan and once for Iraq shows, the VC simply isn't handed out in any like the same numbers as it was in the second half of the 19th/early 20th centuries. If they were dished out 8 times a year, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. BencherliteTalk 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's now such a rarity, especially for someone who lived to receive it, then it seems fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave posted. This is probably borderline for posting, but it is certainly acceptable, and this page does not benefit from continued rehashing of decisions already made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note part of the significance is that this individual is still alive to receive his VC. When calculating awards per year, it should be modified to calculate awards to live recipients per year.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * and why does that makes this more significant exactly? I doubt those who died to get this were any less gallant than those who lived. SeraV (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, you need this to be explained? The significance is that he survived to be awarded his VC.  It's super rare.  It's not a comment on the gallantry of those who died, more it's a comment on how super rare it is to do enough to be awarded a VC and still be alive.  You're either deliberately missing the point or you haven't read the VC article.  Either way, I suggest you stop posting comments like that as it really isn't helping your cause....  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, SearaV. The dead soldiers never seem to make the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's going to be lost in transmission....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, super rare? That's sweet. Do you realise how inane you sound like? SeraV (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Post-Posting Support I'd certainly expect an American or French medal only given 15/70 years to be posted. Plus, if acts of terrorism are posted, acts of heroism fighting the Taliban should also be posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull it - Larry Silverstein agree. Moorrests (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pull it. This item is laughable. Or should we take it that we are going to post it each time a Norwegian receives the Order of St. Olav? Bjerrebæk (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because no one cares about Norway and its Order of St. Quisling. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Pull it Couldn't agree more. This must be a joke.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan avalanches

 * Support when ready That is a major event, but yes, the article needs work before it can be posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I have moved the page to 2015 Afghanistan avalanches per the sources. Everymorning   talk  17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support when ready 187 deaths obviously rises to ITN level. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - major catastrophe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as major catastrophe, and an event of great regional significance. Note that the article could really use more details. Mamyles (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has yet to be developed to the length/quality where it is suitable for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - notable article. who cares about the length as long as the article is not a stub. we have posted articles in the past that are short.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff where we posted an article that was this short. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Three-parent baby

 * Comment This was nominated when it was going into the vote (but before it was passed) . There were issues then of it being too earlier for the ITN cycle but as well as being an ITN-worthy topic. --M ASEM (t) 20:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as before. This nomination (no offense to the nominator) implies that three-parent babies are illegal everywhere until legalized, and that there was actually a law in the UK, rather than a regulatory decision preventing this.  A legislature reserving to itself the right to overturn a decision by a bureaucracy which it itself created is not in itself notable, nor is this a new issue or Parliament reversing a decision of its own agent a first in any real way. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This isn't a nomination for the first three-parent baby (created in 2000), nor is it for a groundbreaking scientific breakthrough in genetic engineering. This is simply a law that allows an already known practice. Additionally, there are many countries where this is not explicitly disallowed, so the UK is actually not the first country to allow it. Mamyles (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given; this isn't the initial creation of this medical procedure, merely its being permitted. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When there's a girl born from this procedure who's probably doing her trigonometry homework right now it seems too late to post. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Uherský Brod shooting

 * Support. Wasn't 100% sure about notability, but the good quality of the article leans me in the support direction.  Spencer T♦ C 03:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Supprt per Spencer and also "worst mass shooting in the country's peacetime history". — Jonny Nixon - ( Talk ) 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN is not a death ticker, but eight dead in a shooting will almost always be posted, unless it takes place in a war zone. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - "It was the worst mass shooting in the country's peacetime history." Significant enough for me. Joshua Garner (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per number of casualties in a peacetime shooting. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good article, universal support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Eddie Ray Routh found guilty of murder

 * Chris Kyle has an orange-level tag which means this can't be posted until the issues behind the tag are resolved and the tag removed. BencherliteTalk 13:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose relatively mundane legal proceeding in the US.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP128. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per article quality and the fact that this does not to rise to the level of ITN. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - NBC announced the verdict with a breaking news crawl across the bottom of the screen, which I thought was a little odd - I don't think the news was big enough for that sort of treatment, and I don't think it's big enough for ITN. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Obama vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline

 * Oppose. Internal US politics, expected to have a shot for overturning the veto due to the Rep controlled senate, so very much not likely the end here. --M ASEM (t) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most agree it is unlikely the veto will be overturned as the GOP cannot get 67 votes in the Senate.331dot (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose. In a sense this is an international issue(as the pipeline would enter Canada and carry their oil to US refineries) but this veto has resulted in simply the status quo; the State Department is still technically analyzing the pipeline and it could still be built. The bigger story would have been had Obama signed it. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a procedural thing. He vetoed the bill, because Congress was trying to usurp his authority in deciding whether to permit it or not, which is still pending an assessment from the State Department. It might still get built, it's just a turf battle. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose failure to pass some legislation is not an ITN issue. BencherliteTalk 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not of significance outside North America. Sca (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ...which isn't required and specifically discouraged as an argument. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose – If I had tuppence for every time a bill was rejected in whichever country across the world... RGloucester  — ☎ 00:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have enough cash to buy the Outer Hebrides? GoldenRing (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Neutral. While the Keystone pipeline situation is a "hot-button topic" in U.S. politics, its actual significance is questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaKGarner (talk • contribs) 03:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - The pipeline is mostly hype, especially as to the number of (temporary) jobs it would create. The much bigger US story will be if the Republicans manage to let the Homeland Security department shut down, due to their attempts to strongarm Obama's immigration initiative. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. This can probably be closed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Chris Gayle double century

 * Oppose "Double centuries" don't seem to be a huge rarity in the sport of cricket. One player has scored up to 12 in his career. 11 different players have scored at least five. --Tocino 10:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That list relates to double centuries in Test matches, which last up to 5 days making big individual scores more likely. Today's score was in a One Day game, where time is limited so big scores are rarer. This was only the 5th One Day International double century and the first in the men's World Cup (it is also the first outside of India). ReadingOldBoy (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an important distinction that you point out, and it makes Gayle's performance look more impressive, but ultimately I don't think that single-game, individual performances in team sports like this belong on ITN. --Tocino 10:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I think that some (usually ground breaking or extremely rare) individual performances are worth including, I'm not sure that this one is. We posted the first ever men's ODI double century a few years ago, and I think that was right, but I am coming round to a weak oppose on this one. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm Notable, certainly, though I am unsure if it qualifies for ITN - but I wonder if the partnership between Gayle and Samuels (372) which is an an all-time international ODI record is possibly even more notable? Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The partnership thing is a good one as it's unlikely to be bettered in the near future. But I'm not sure if it qualifies for ITN. Also it looks like World Cups have a special preference in ITN. — Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(ping) 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as cricket is not a notable sport in my corner of the world. Judging by the constant flow of nominations for this or that league/record/game, there is no established hierarchy of achievement for the sport, and as such I don't know how we can evaluate whether a particular nomination is notable or impactful.  The winding discussions that following nominations like this one are evidence for this point.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your first ever edit to Wikipedia, though clearly you've been watching this page for a while, or more likely you forgot to log in. The first part of your oppose is irrelevant, and the rest of it is wrong (though that's not surprising since you don't know anything about the sport anyway, as you admit).  All of it, though, doesn't help us evaluate this particular nomination, and I'm going for not quite notable enough (I think a Test record partnership would have been, though).  Therefore weak oppose. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose Not such a rare feat to merit inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Something that's never happened before (a double century in a World Cup) is not a rare feat? Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A double century has happened a lot. That it happened in a World Cup? Now you're slicing and dicing too much. For a comparable, Roy Halladay threw a no-hitter in the 2010 MLB postseason, only the second time a pitcher has ever done that. But, it was the 269th no-hitter in MLB history. So, yeah. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. As the much rarer event of pitching a perfect game in baseball has been repeatedly deemed insufficient to justify an ITN (In the news/Candidates/August 2012, In the news/Candidates/April 2012). it is hard to see how this event qualifies. --Allen3 talk 12:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm opposing this anyway, but I'll say it again - this is the first time this has occurred in the World Cup, and only the 5th time it has occurred in international play. Quite how something that's happened 23 times is "much rarer" I'm not entirely sure! Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been 23 MLB perfect games, period. (Only one has been in the postseason, and I don't think there has ever been one in Olympic or other international play.) How many total double centuries have there been? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not comparable because there are three forms of cricket, this is a double century in one-day cricket, i.e. heavily time constrained. It doesn't invalidate the rarity of this record. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the MLB is not the only place that baseball is played anyway. To be honest though, I don't think you can compare the two that easily. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Sinking of the ML Mostofa-3

 * Very Weak support due to the number of casualties, but as the CNN page notes, "Overcrowding of ferries and poor monitoring systems are persistent problems in Bangladesh, which sees scores of casualties from ferry accidents every year"; in other words, this unfortunately isn't that unusual an event in Bangladesh. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support based on the number of casualties. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support, due to the number of casualties. I'd like to take this time to say I'm leaving ITN/C (Not being a diva or anything, I'm just fed up with things here) and I'd like to thank and encourage 331dot, Mellowed Fillmore, Muboshgu, and Baseball Bugs for their kindness, tolerance, and common sense. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support per 331dot, these accidents seem reasonably commonplace but this one has made news headlines so it's worth consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article has not developed to the minimum length/quality required to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the only reason for posting is the number of casualties, then we need to start a recent accident ticker; wikipedia is not the news. Only when other notable facts are involved (e.g., sabotage, a criminal act, a notable victim) or the number of casualties is in the top 5 percentile for that sort of accident should we be posting transportation disasters, no offense to the victims here, of course. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as a high-casualty, headline-grabbing disaster. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Alas, all too frequent. Sca (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support pending article improvement - The article didn't even have a talk page, so I created one, but it is a stub and needs work. Jus  da  fax   05:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 87th Academy Awards

 * They should be posted in about 1h. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is being updated as they air, and has been sourced including details of the ceremony, so this should be ready to go when Best Picture hits (this has been the historical way to present, unless something bigger happens). --M ASEM (t) 04:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting that the Birdman article is in good shape for main page/ITN. Just a matter of the Oscars page being updated. --M ASEM (t) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posting. The minimum updates are there and the articles will be expanded further. I'll go with the standard prose for Oscars - X wins Y awards, including best picture (last year was special since Gravity won more awards). --Tone 05:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Despite what Masem said about the ceremony article, there is virtually nothing in either of those articles that could not have been written before the ceremony. The only modifications are the addition of the sentence The film won four Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Directing, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography to the Birdman (film) article. The ceremony article has no prose update whatsoever, but just bolding added to the winners. What are you seeing? --  tariq abjotu  05:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, what else can you add? Whom people thanked upon receiving the awards? For sport events, it is reasonable to expect to have a game summary or something, but here it's just who won ... Admittedly, the winners could be written in prose but that's as far as it gets. I may be wrong, though. --Tone 05:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See 86th Academy Awards. Granted, we don't need it to be a featured list yet, but, the ceremony article can talk about happenings during, you know, the ceremony. It doesn't even note extremely basic observations, like the fact that Birdman won four awards -- the blurb we have on the Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  06:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is stuff that can come in time - the basic foundations (including the wins, nominees, performers/presenters, and even some of the preliminary controversy) are in place that the article is clear and understood, but more details (such as what I believe will be commented on, the Lady Gaga/Julie Andrews part, will get more news tomorrow and the days after, but that won't change the core content). Adding this type of material is what engaging in editors/readers looking at the front page will help without confusing them with an article without that necessary structure or existing referencing to build up on. --M ASEM (t) 06:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And that's great, but ITN is not a news feed and "big events" should not get a special pass under the guise of "that can come in time". ITN is about showcasing articles updated to reflect current events. What is considered sufficiently updated is subjective, but 87th Academy Awards and Birdman (film) are woefully insufficient. We don't need to be the first to tell the world which movie won Best Picture. --  tariq abjotu  06:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was already in sufficient shape before the ceremony - it had the structure, the nominees sourced, and as the ceremony progressed, people updated it. There will be some reflect on the nature/criticism of the ceremony in the next few days, of course, and we're not excepting GA quality material for ITN items. We do this a lot with RDs too - the obits that come with a notable person's death are what often help to expand an article to GA or better quality, but we don't expect that to be in place when RD is posted, just that the major capture of the person's life is there and well sourced.   (Note that I do agree the expedited way this was posted following my nom, I'm concerned with - even an ITNR element should be given a few hours to gain article quality input, but I don't think compared to past noms we are missing much here. ) --M ASEM  (t) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Could an admin deal with the deletion tag on the infobox template? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's possible unless the infobox in the article is "subst"ed and the warning removed... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have to "noinclude" the TFD tag, so that it only appeared on the template page and not on the pages using the template, but then fewer people would know that the template was up for discussion at TFD. BencherliteTalk 21:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Why are events that support commercial interests (NASCAR or some film company) being fast tracked onto the In The News Section? We normally spend far more time on discussing topics and reaching consensus than a couple of hours.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Academy Awards are in ITNR, indicating that its importance has already been decided by consensus. It can be posted quickly, provided that it has been sufficiently updated and does not have a large amount of opposes at time of posting. Feel free to debate the inclusion of this event in ITNR if you think it lacks importance. Mamyles (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] 2015 Daytona 500

 * Oppose until the "Race results" table is filled in. Otherwise, it's a good article, and the Daytona 500 is the single most important race in NASCAR, second among American races only to the Indy 500.  Winner of the Daytona 500 is often better known in any given year than the series champion at the end of the year.  If the article is finished (and needs only a little polish to do so) I'd support fully on the significance.  Plus, the green-white-checker finish made for some exciting racing... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose we already post the Indy 500, there's no need for more of the same. Oh, and "Race details[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]" at the top of the infobox is bonkers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe both of the above issues have been resolved; the table is complete and the refs are no longer all in the infobox. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support no reason not to post it. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an odd support rationale. Would there therefore be no reason not to post every result from this year's worldwide Formula One season in that case?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you realize that the Daytona 500 is more significant than some ordinary Formula One race. The Daytona 500 is probably the most important race in NASCAR and I don't agree with not posting it just because we already posted the Indy 500. To me, your oppose just looks like another part of your 'anti-posting of American events at ITN' crusade. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just question the value of a vote that says "no reason not to post it".  I have no inkling about the Daytona 500 whatsoever, it's a bit too introspective for my liking.  And yes, the Australian Grand Prix is significant, as is the San Marino GP, the German GP, the British GP etc.  We've already got Indy 500, not seeing why this is necessary at all.  But, in any case, thanks for your personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't made any personal attacks, but you're welcome anyway. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well other than accusing me of being on an anti-American crusade, no. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, most important NASCAR race in America. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under that impression too, which is why I'm surprised this isn't ITN/R. (I do know enough to know that this isn't in opposition to the Indy 500 in any way.) I'm no fan of stock car racing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment can someone explain why this is "the most important NASCAR race in America"? (Do they have NASCAR races outside America by the way?)  If it is of such high order, I would suggest it be added at ITNR as Muboshgu notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "in America" part wasn't necessary (although I also don't know if NASCAR holds any races outside of the U.S.). I just don't know enough about stock car racing so I could be wrong on its importance, but I feel I've heard more about it than any other individual NASCAR race over the years. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They tried to go to Japan and Mexico a couple of times, but the forays (which were tests - one was a series of exhibitions, the other was a series of lower tier races) didn't pan out. I think a better way to describe it would be the world's premier stock car race...and stock car racing does have prominence in North America, South America and Oceania. Opposing it bc the Indy 500 gets posted makes no sense. They are entirely different cars and series. That's like opposing the Epsom Derby bc the Grand National gets posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like a lot of Americans above the Mason–Dixon line I don't know much about stock car racing. The best I can contribute to the debate is to quote the Daytona 500 article: The Daytona 500 is regarded as the most important and prestigious race on the NASCAR calendar, carrying by far the largest purse.  The article Sprint Cup Series states Regular season races were previously held in Canada, and exhibition races were held in Japan and Australia. The Daytona 500, its most prestigious race, had a television audience in the U.S. of about 16 million viewers in 2009.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to know I'm not totally off base (I'm also a blue stater above the M-D line). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, in absolute viewing terms, it's about as popular on the TV in America as a Christmas episode of Eastenders or Coronation Street in the UK, a country with 1/6 the population of the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the venerable Coronation Street, the world's longest-running soap opera on TV ever, were ever canceled, it would be brought to ITN and posted within minutes as being a very huge deal. The comparison seems amiss.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You missed the point entirely. The previous editor wasn't talking about the cancellation of the Daytona 500, it was about the popularity.  Seems that the Daytona 500 is as popular in domestic television terms as a Christmas edition of Coronation Street or Eastenders.  There was no discussion over the cancellation of the soap, and even then, it would never be posted within minutes because this isn't English Wikipedia, it's American Wikipedia.  You know that, of course.  The fact that 16 million Americans watch the Daytona 500 is, well, no big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal. But I think it may be as big as some other sports items that make it to ITN.  In US terms in the sports consciousness (I really can't comment on it's significance internatinally) it's about as big as the Kentucky Derby, a golf major, the Indy 500 (which again is an entirely different type of racing), etc.  It's bigger than any marathon I'd say.  Of course some of those events have a substatial profile outside the US.  I think the IP editor above hit it right that NASCAR is the preeminent Stock car racing competition which is a popular sport internatinally.  The Sprint Cup, the season champtionship, is an ITN event so perhaps NASCAR is covered.  But I think for Americans who are not week to week followers of NASCAR, the Daytona 500 is much more of a household name--everybody's at least heard of it.  So I dunno.  I'm not for or against this (I'm neutral).--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for some explanation beyond "It's important' or "why not post it" or "most significant NASCAR race in America" etc. I appreciate it.  I still don't see why it's more important than any Formula One Grand Prix and certainly it's less global, although we're not allowed to say that.  If it's such a shoo-in, it should be at ITN/R.  Right now, it's not, and I can't see it's significance beyond a few fanboys in the US.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd argue that the Daytona 500 is leaps and bounds more notable than its series championship, which is more or less decided on a gimmick these days. It's an ITN/R discussion probably, but I believe you could probably drop the championship and add the Daytona 500. The Indy championship and the FIA World Endurance Championship aren't included, but the premier races of those series are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment I am the nominator and obviously cannot vote based on that rationale; however, I would like to present my case again. The Daytona 500 is the biggest race of the season; it's nicknamed the "Super Bowl of NASCAR" for a reason. I've also taken care of the issues presented by others during the nomination. Also,, you state above, "I just question the value of a vote that says 'no reason not to post it'," and yet, in your vote, you state that there is "no need for more of the same". To me, that basically says, "There is no reason to post it", which, by your logic, should be questioned as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to slam you or make a personal attack as I know you are an experienced and prolific editor (what you've done with The Boat Race is absolutely incredible), but I am trying to make an argument that this is more than just your typical Formula 1, IndyCar, NASCAR, etc., race. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And just a side note, the "in America" part certainly is not necessary. The Camping World Truck Series runs one race in Canada, other than that all the races take place in America. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I can't tell the difference between this and the Indy 500, but it's clear that after reading some of the comments, they're very different. However, Indy 500 is ITNR and yet NASCAR doesn't appear to have an ITNR.  It would be instructive to see a discussion where the prominence of this race is discussed and acknowledged.  Right now, I see it as a race on a calendar in the US.  It doesn't seem any different to any Grand Prix, moreover it has more niche interest than the Grands Prix.   The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a prestigious race which receives the most media coverage and awards the highest amount of prize money, similar to Formula 1's Grand Prix of Monaco or IndyCar's Indianapolis 500. NASCAR's biggest and most prestigious race is the Daytona 500. Also, while it's not ITNR yet, as I mentioned above, the 2011 and 2013 Daytona 500s both made it onto the main page at ITN. Finally, I guarantee that the Daytona 500 is going to garner much more attention than this week's upcoming race, the 2015 Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500. Suffice it to say I certainly won't be nominating that one here next week. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but as it's not ITNR, why is this year's Daytona 500 more important than last year's which wasn't posted? I'm genuinely curious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That I cannot fully explain, but I'll try my best. I truly believe this is notable enough to be a ITNR, I'm just unsure why it wasn't posted last year. Perhaps nobody in the WikiProject thought of nominating it. But as I've said before, it's not like it hasn't been posted before; as the banners on the talk pages note, the 2013 race was posted as was the 2011 race, but those happened before I joined the NASCAR WikiProject, so I don't know why those two passed nominations while the 2012 and 2014 races were not even nominated to begin with. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, two things then: (1) place a suggestion at WP:ITN/R so this can be fully debated for perennial inclusion and (2) good luck with this nomination. It has plenty of support, and the article, while in need of a few more references in the main race section, is in decent condition. It's a lovely American tradition, watched by Americans and supported by Americans, and declared super notable by Americans.  I still can't see why it's more notable than, say, the San Marino Grand Prix, but I've tried to make my point too many times.  It is what it is.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you recommend me doing that now or after the nomination is either posted or closed? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you'll be fine to do it now. This nomination, in principle, has complete support other than from me, so there's no indication that you're trying to bypass the system.  A couple of editors have indicated surprise that it's not already an ITNR article, so it should be a safe bet that, at the very least, you can initiate the discussion.  Good luck.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Weak Oppose. I admit to not being terribly familiar with auto racing but I don't see why the first race of NASCAR is important enough to post any more than posting the Opening Day of baseball or football. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to explain as it seems you are not familiar with the subject. Opening day of baseball does not award players with as much prestige, money, and fame as the Daytona 500 does. The race is more than just opening day, just as the Indy 500, an ITNR, is more than just the 5th race of the IndyCar season. Hopefully this makes some sense, feel free to comment again if you still don't understand. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support - Regarded as the biggest event in the NASCAR season. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are already 8 annual ITN/R events in this area of sport, which is more than any other sport. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I have to curiously challenge the above opposition. So you're saying that because there's eight, that means we can't have another one? I'm not sure the argument is justified here. To me, all it's saying is that there are because we already have X number of annual events, we can't have another newsworthy item in this area of motorsports (NASCAR only has one, by the way, the rest are all other forms of motorsport) be featured in ITN. This isn't even an ITN/R, so I don't see how "There are already 8 annual ITN/R events" is a legitimate reason to oppose. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One could rephrase my objection that there are eight events annually in the motorsports area that consensus has deemed more noteworthy than this one. Given the frequency of sports events worldwide, I don't feel that including non-ITN/R sports events promotes diversity of the ITN content, unless there is some unusual reason to do so, such as an important world record. As a side issue, I find it strange that motorsports has such a high representation on ITN/R; with 8 events it is joint top, with film and exhibitions/fairs/summits. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for the clarification, I greatly appreciate it. I'll make one last argument; as I've stated above, the Indy 500 is to IndyCar as the Grand Prix of Monaco is to Formula 1 as the Daytona 500 is to NASCAR. With that, if IndyCar and F1's biggest races are notable enough, why wouldn't NASCAR's be? The sport is just as big, if not bigger, in the United States as the Indy 500, and Grand Prix of Monaco, not to mention, as Johnsemlak states above, the Kentucky Derby or U.S. open or a golf or tennis major. Thus, I believe this is a big enough event to make it onto the main page at ITN.
 * Also, the race is now over 24 hours old, so if this is going to pass I'd like to see a decision soon. Would it be possible for an admin to look over this once one gets a chance? Again, this is my first attempt at ITN, so if the answer to posting this is no, I completely understand; however, I hope my fellow editors will consider the arguments given by me and all those who have supported this nomination. Again, many thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support Not a fan of car racing--I am totally uninterested, yet know scores who are---but this is once again huge in comparison with many other sports events, and when one hears the word America in every single oppose one expects an admin to summarily dismiss such opposes per the policy at the top of the page. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted Article and update seem up to snuff, and this nomination has sufficient support. Whether this should be ITN/R, or whether the Sprint Cup champion should be removed from ITN/R, is a discussion for elsewhere. --  tariq abjotu  04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know how this has been posted. There are actually more opposes listed here than supports. Can an admin please take this down.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because consensus is not counting of votes, and the posting admin considers the strength of the arguments for and against when deciding what to do. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Tomb of the Suleyman Shah

 * Oppose a temporary removal covered under the ongoing ticker. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per μηδείς. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as covered by ongoing. Sadly, the article is quite bad.  Virtually the entire article is about the political aspects of the Tomb, and there is almost nothing written about the Tomb itself, it's history, architecture, etc.  If this were an encyclopedic article I would support posting this, but as it is, it's just an aside in the ISIS story.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a significant enough development/story to warrant its own entry. BencherliteTalk 14:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Clark Terry

 * Strong support, a major figure, over seven decades, played with all the jazz greats. Many awards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, when article improved. Influential jazz musician; the Telegraph obituary states he had a "deep and lasting influence on the course of jazz" and was the "first African American to become a regular in a band on a major US television network." The article requires work on the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality only Was on my way to possibly nominate this myself. Clearly a great in his field, a pioneer in his field, broke racial boundaries being one of the first contract African-American musicians on network television.  If only our article was given a little care, we could post this.  It's not main page ready as of now, though.  If anyone fixes the referencing problems, consider this vote a full support without me having to change it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron (That is, opposing on article quality only). The bios from NYTimes and Telegraph would likely help in the short term. --M ASEM (t) 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like there's been a fair bit of improvement of the article, seems fine to post. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely meets the Jerry Tarkanian standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Basketball Blues? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Marked ready No opposition, except on quality, and I do believe the quality has been addressed. There are no more "citation needed" tags remaining. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dan Topolski

 * Support upon article improvement. Seems to meet DC2 for rowing. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a general rule I feel college coaches fall below the RD threshold but for those who judge otherwise he was certainly at the top of coaching UK college rowing. His coaching career also includes coaching the UK Olympic team. His personal rowing career includes a world championship gold medal, and his book about the 1987 Boat Race won a national award. The article is short but adequately referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On further research, support for RD, based on his personal rowing medals and award-winning writing, as well as being a leading UK rowing coach. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose - Meets the death criteria, but it's a niche field and I don't think this person is important or well-known enough in the big scheme of things. The article averages something like 10 views per day. Only two teams compete, so 12 wins doesn't particularly impress me. If the two college basketball coaches we posted were a mistake (I think only one of them was) then the way to fix that is by being more selective. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's called systemic bias. We can't be more selective when the majority of those voting here are in the demographic that support college basketball coaches with mediocre records. As for important, he was the most important rowing coach in the history of the Boat Race.  As for "well-known", that's not relevant.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bongwarrior, you say you oppose but concede it meets the death criteria. That's really the only consideration relevant(to the merits) for an RD nomination.  "Niche field" is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not my understanding. It needs to meet the DC to be eligible for posting - eligibility is not a guarantee. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support once the article is improved. Won a world championship as a rower and as a coach in the 1984 Olympics. Certainly qualifies as important in the field of rowing. -- Calidum  18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - seems just as notable as Jerry Tarkanian. Looks a cert. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Except Tarkanian was kept out. If only he'd paddled on the Thames, maybe the Brits would like him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tarkanian was posted and, despite several calls for pulling, remained up until replaced. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. The last I had seen of it, I had thought it had been yanked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, although I think we should reconsider the notability of some of these college sports coaches for the purposes of RD. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If Jerry Tarkanian doesn't qualify, neither does this guy. Making a big thing out of a guy who paddled canoes on the Thames? Gimme a break. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, meets the criteria but the article could use a bit more expansion. <font color="#C50">Nakon 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has been improved quite a bit since I nominated it, thanks to a courageous bunch of editors. This world champion rower, award-winning author, Olympic coach, winningest Boat Race coach, noted journalist, national commentator now should be fit for main page inclusion.  Although he didn't do college basketball.....  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Based on the evidence, he was a "top of the field" guy in rowing. Much like Tarkanian was in college basketball. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the bit where Tarkanian coached Olympic teams and won international awards for his own basketball playing and national awards for his writing skills and demonstrated a 20-plus year career in top-level journalism. Forgive me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, let it go. He's supporting your nomination. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, it'd be better if it weren't with a sleight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. Article is in good shape now and there is conensus here to post. -- Calidum  22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Posted, clear consensus to post. <font color="#C50">Nakon 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It amuses me that the entire notion of this being posted is essentially "because we posted Tarkanian". Talk about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC