Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Archives (2008–11)

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Sukhoi Su-24 Russia begins air strikes (Sukhoi Su-24 pictured) against Islamic State and anti-government forces in Syria in support of the Syrian government. The Indian Space Research Organisation launches Astrosat, India's first space telescope. Taliban forces seize control of the provincial capital of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan. A stampede during the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, kills hundreds of people. Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn resigns after company officials admit widespread rigging of diesel emissions test results. Ongoing events: Southeast Asian haze European migrant crisis Recent deaths view - page history - related changes - Edit (admins only)

How to nominate an item In order to suggest a candidate: Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated. Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC. Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates. Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so. Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense. Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting. For recent deaths, please state why the person is notable enough to post - merely having a Wikipedia article is insufficient. Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time. Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page. There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN. Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template. Headers Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active. Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready], you should remove the header. Voicing an opinion on an item Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form. Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so. The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page. Please do not... ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached. ... 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. ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN. ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s). ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.

Suggestions

---

October 2

---

RD: Brian Friel

Article: Brian Friel
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Ihcoyc (give credit)
Updater: JMHamo (give credit)

---

Note: Article would appear to be fairly well referenced with the exception of a "Private Life" section; subject wasa very private person and perhaps that should simply be removed.

Nominator's comments: Appears to have been a significant English language Irish playwright. Best play Tony Award for Dancing at Lughnasa, Drama Critics Circle Award, other nominations and awards. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Contra nominator, referencing is not good for this article at all, including unreferenced quotes. Looks to be notable as a Tony Award-winner, but article is not currently postable. Happy to support once it is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: nominating an article under BLP and updating it with a single cited sentence is not a sufficient update if the majority of the article remains unsourced. While the lead is packed with inline cites, the last few sections have very few references. But otherwise, would support for RD as a three-time Tony Award nominee (with one win) and one of a handful of artists elected to the title Saoi. Fuebaey (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support conditional on significant improvement in sourcing. Subject appears to meet ITNDC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as per ad orientem.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The entire "Career" section—which is most of the article—is virtually unreferenced. ‑ iridescent 09:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Article needs a lot of editing. Personally, I'm not interested in doing that (and incidentally, despite the nomination above, don't wish to be credited for the one sentence I did add). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) .
• Oppose on article quality. Massive chunks of prose are entirely unsourced and it seems like it would take a considerable amount of effort to fix this article. Certainly will be happy to support if someone spends the time to fix the article, but I certainly can't do so considering its current state. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Yemen cuts relations with Iran

Denied by both the governments involved. This is what happens when journalists file stories without bothering to fact-check. ‑ iridescent 15:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Article to update: Iran–Yemen relations
Blurb: Yemen ceases diplomatic relations with Iran due to alleged Iranian support of the Shiite Houthi group to overthrow President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.
News source(s): Reuters, Xinhua
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Needs some work, but AFAIK, end of diplomatic relations between countries is usually postable. Brandmeister^talk 13:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support once the article is expanded. The cease of diplomatic relations between two countries is very significant and can also have major implications on the relations in other spheres (e.g. economic relations).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: There are currently two entities claiming to represent the government of Yemen. Perhaps the blurb should make it clear which one is cutting off relations? -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm intending to withdraw this, as Reuters updated their previous report in the linked URL, citing a Yemeni government spokesman who denied the end of relations. Brandmeister^talk 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - updated and ready, then post. not before.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

October 1

---

El Cambray Dos landslide

Updated article: 2015 El Cambray Dos landslide
Blurb: A landslide near Guatemala City, Guatemala, kills at least 30 people.
Alternative blurb: A landslide near Guatemala City, Guatemala, kills at least 30 people and leaves 450 others unaccounted for.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Cyclonebiskit (give credit)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major landslide disaster in Guatemala and "one of the worst in recent memory" according to Reuters. Occurred during the overnight hours of October 1–2, with many people caught off-guard. At least 30 are confirmed dead and and estimated 450 are unaccounted for (toll is unlikely to be that high, but means its expected to rise). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• support - notable and important enough. considerable number of deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] Umpqua Community College shooting

It is unlikely that we will get a consensus to post this story. Instead, the debate is getting unproductive, so it is better to close this. --Tone 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Article to update: Umpqua Community College shooting
Blurb: A school shooting kills ten and wounds seven at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.
News source(s): BBC, RT, USA Today, Reuters, NY Times, Telegraph, CNN
Nominator: Muboshgu (give credit)
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Yes, another school shooting in the U.S. I know how these are generally received here, but I'm still nominating it because this is significant news. The idea that these shootings are so "commonplace" in the U.S. as to not merit posting is incomprehensible to me, as spree shootings are not "normal" anywhere. Comparisons to attacks in other countries (I often see Afghanistan comparisons) where attacks result in greater numbers of casualties that don't get posted (or sometimes nominated) are not relevant to this discussion, since what makes these so shocking, even after all the previous ones, is that Oregon is not a war zone. The fact that other industrialized nations have fewer gun deaths is all the more reason that shootings in the U.S. remain newsworthy, getting constant coverage even in the absence of shootings, making this suitable for ITN. Reports from this shooting say that there are 10 dead and 20 injured. I haven't seen details on the perpetrator or motives, as it's still early. The article is a stub that was just created, but more information will become available in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose with apologies to the nom who makes an obviously sincere argument for why we should be covering all of these shootings. Unfortunately they are far too common in the United States to keep posting them all. If something turns up that makes this one different (perhaps evidence of a terrorist motive?) I will reconsider. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Support It is becoming increasingly clear that this is NOT the usual random mass shooting we have become so used to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• • Well, I appreciate your appreciation of my argument. To me the motive isn't so important. It could be a jilted lover, or someone who feels they were unfairly fired, or it could be a terrorist. The mass shooting, to me, meets the "significance" criteria of ITN as part of the crisis we have with guns in this country. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with Muboshgu that motive means little in the story, compared to destruction. Adam Lanza worried that his mother would send him away, Klebold and Harris felt bullied – neither of those motives is out of the ordinary with modern American life, but the destruction they wrought clearly is '''tAD''' (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• support - considerable number of deaths. had it been 1-2 deaths or no deaths I would have agreed with Ad orientem, but here we have a major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - And, I literally came onto WP because I assumed that someone would propose this, and so I could oppose it. I don't feel particularly good about being right about it. I'm afraid this is just NEWS and not an opportunity to showcase our articles. Sad news, but, even sadder, barely news. Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are definitely wrong in your assessment about this bing "barely news". That is just simply wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How fascinating. You'll no doubt explain to me what my own standard is for "barely news". Don't be so presumptive. My argument is that this does not support further learning or show case quality. Your opinion on what my opinions are... Well. 86.163.163.210 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC) — 86.163.163.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Just to note there's a massive edit-war going on at the moment. I've warned both users (see article talkpage for more). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ad Orientem, although I feel we will be lone voices. The ongoing gunlust and solution (more guns!!) means that this stuff happens all the time in the US, and hardly ever elsewhere in the "developed world". Sure, it's a tragic event, those folks shouldn't have been killed, but that shooter shouldn't have had free-and-easy access to guns. It will be "yet another" mass murder this year in the US, we can safely move on unless something significant beyond "kid shoots up school". Unlike the nominator's claim, spree shootings are normal in the US, just like market bombings are common in Iraq and traffic accidents are common in India. I'm sorry about that, but somehow a lot of the US seems happy to facilitate this, or worse, encourage it. All that notwithstanding, this will 100% be posted as this is American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for reason that the article is practically a stub, due to the lack of information around. Ten deaths by one person is extremely shocking, but there is little on the article to inform the reader right now. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Major shooting event, big story. News is news, even if it happens in America. This isn't a difficult decision. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - even by American standards for massacres, the body count is high. Article needs a massive amount of improvement before it could be posted though. Resolute 20:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point anything on this subject should be posted IFF something is done about the legislation. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant Oppose – per Ad Orientem and TRM ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak support after rethinking things. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until the page is available to edit I'm frankly tired of trying to encourage new editors when everything linked from the main page is locked. It's an invitation with a door slam. So, I think we need to be sensitive to the newbies. There are lots of eyes on the page and vandalism, as there will be, will be reverted quickly - we have tools, they don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It IS available to edit. By registered users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• If this kind of thing happened "all the time", it wouldn't be in the news. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Wait. We don't know enough about the identity of the shooter or the motive to make an informed decision about the relative significance of this tragedy or create a front page worthy article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, mass shootings in the US are commonplace. There have been 264 shootings in 274 days this year. There is nothing that makes this one stand out from the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, 142nd school shooting in the last 3 years, and 45th mass shooting in US this year. These are no longer news. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Really? "No longer news"? I guess the news reporters covering it should be told to go home, then. Their job is to cover news. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me rephrase that then. Such events are no longer so unusual that they qualify for ITN. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay. I don't see it that way. I think, if anything, the frequency of these events elevates the newsworthiness of each one, as the lack of action on the part of the U.S. becomes more and more galling. I'm aware that I'm treading close to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but this is a newsworthy event regardless of how many we've had. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Do you not think that Wikipedia ignoring such an event is actually sending a more powerful message? Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
          • I think, paraphrasing what Obama said, that most of us have become too numb to these shootings, leading to apathy. Somehow this has become routine when it is anything but. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, well said and I can see your point. I'm still, however, going to stick with my oppose unless this turns out to be different from "random wingnut with a gun shoots people". Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
              • We shall see what the motive is. We have reports that the shooter asked people to state their religion before shooting. The feds are apparently investigating a threat made on 4chan. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Ad Orientem, TRM , Black Kite. Obama made much the same point in his statement today. (Click on video.) Sca (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support a shooter singling out Christians to be shot in the head, killing well over a dozen people on a school campus with no armed guard is certainly as big a news incident as Charlie Hebdo. μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Medeis: Charlie Hebdo was internationally noted as provocative - it had a long history of provocation by printing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in 2007, had their offices firebombed in 2011 and the murders in 2015 were instigated by Al-Qaeda putting them on a hit list - this school has no political context. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The opposes are dumb. How about we make the "it happens all the time" argument for typhoons striking Asia, disease in third world countries or European countries going bankrupt? Calidum 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the criteria for newsworthiness is: the unusual. (Obviously, such events shouldn't be usual in an ostensibly advanced country – which is what President Obama argued today.) Sca (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the point he was trying to make is that how numb we've become to these shootings is unusual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; alas, that doesn't make such events unusual. Sca (talk)

• Support. Assuming we believe the USA Today backed Behind the Bloodshed project [1], this is only the 8th US mass killing since 2006 to have more than 10 victims, and the largest mass shooting since the Washington Navy Yard shooting of 2013. For me that is sufficient evidence that this is not a routine shooting event, but instead a sufficiently unusual one to qualify for ITN. That said, I agree that we should wait for a bit more information and article development before posting. Dragons flight (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I allow that it tops U.S. media Thursday, but alas I expect it to fade quickly from the public consciousness – as just another crazy shooting spree. The gun laws won't change in Amerika. Sca (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - As unusual it was in Oregon or community colleges, we have already posted Charleston church shooting this year. Let the media do their dirty work (media is plural of medium). In the meantime, the reactions about "numbness" is overstated. In fact, the more newsworthy than this is repealing or amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or signing a bill restricting gun use or sales or something. The media focus on this shooting because... the shooting happened in peaceful Oregon. "Unusualness" as one of criteria? We have already posted annual sports events and award ceremonies. The UK has been restricting gun use without written Constitution (but instead uncodified), while the US... struggles to restrict with the Amendment in place. ----George Ho (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose The school has not done anything political above any other soft target in the area - the Dylan Roof Charleston church shooting had obvious political/racial issues at play. I'd be willing to re-consider in 24 hours if there are any actual political ramifications beyond the usual school shootings in the U.S. -- Callinus (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. TOP number one story right now on both Google News, and Yahoo! News. — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel these are just too common now to highlight each and every one. Blythwood (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Cirt. Opposers fail to convince. Each time one of these shootings happen is a separate event involving different people acting for different reasons, which is a fundamental difference over things like the daily battles in the Syrian Civil War that result in deaths. Banedon (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose yet another shooting. The impact only extends to those directly harmed by this. Unless there's serious connection to the IRA stuff that he had been supporting, this is yet another lonely malcontent speading misery.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Blythwood, unless this is the catalyst that causes the US to finally wake up and see sense. We can but hope...  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Another week, another shooting. Rapidly losing newsworthiness. Fgf10 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• The anti-American bias is quite strong here. What a complete joke. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  It's more a reminder that the rest of the world are sick and tired of seeing these events, sick and tired of the "shock" and "upset" that is portrayed, only for nothing to change. Go buy a burger, get a gun while you're there, etc etc. These events are no longer uncommon, they are not ITN newsworthy, nearly 150 school shootings in three years? Perhaps suggest a school shooting ticker instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How many of those 150 were nominated or posted? No one is suggesting posting every school shooting, or every earthquake, or every airplane crash. As (I think) the deadliest school shooting since Sandy Hook, this one seems significant enough to post. If reasonable people objectively disagree, that's fine. If this gets buried underneath a bunch of "It's Amerika, happens all the time, they need moar gun laws" hyperbole, that's pretty lame. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not lame at all. That's what happens, that's why we don't post suicide bombings in markets any longer, or traffic accidents in India. They are commonplace. As for your quote, well it's abosultely spot on, isn't it, not hyperbole at all, unless you and your countryfolk are content to keep seeing children shot to death every week while you do nothing about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's garbage. At least try to give the illusion of objectivity. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, not garbage. I'm afraid it's the US that lacks objectivity. If something happens on a regular basis, it's not news any more. Simple as that. What needs to be done to stop these is an entirely different discussion for a different place. (Well not really a discussion, it's blatantly obvious, but I digress) Fgf10 (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

It's garbage? And that's why the rest of look on incredulously while your children are murdered every day and you do nothing (apart from encourage moar gunz in schools). What a bizarre approach to life and what an offhand and dismissive attitude to children being murdered. One mass shooting per day, well played. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel the need to mention dead children in every post in order to try to win an internet argument, but it's the level of class we've come to expect from you, and I guess that's oddly comforting in its own way. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What a bizarre response. This is a proposed post about a school shooting? Perhaps you misunderstood. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support if major news organizations worldwide consider it major news, then opposing it seems like sour grapes. The world's news organizations consider it major news. As to those saying that it happens all the time it should not be noted, well, we should stop noting natural disasters then, since they happen all the time, and with much the same effects, and much the same lack of preparation. If the news headlines or frontpage news outside the region of origin, then it should be a simple decision that it qualifies for ITN. This currently headlines DW.com (Germany), BBC News (UK) ; is front page news for SCMP (Hong Kong), ABC News (Australia) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Routine, medium-low death count, no lasting impact. 109.149.137.78 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Although, it is newsworthy about just how blind America is to its own glaring gun problem.--WaltCip (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support because the shooter was apparently asking about his victims' religion. If not for that, I would not support. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• What exactly does this change about this routine, senseless, essentially legalized massacre?--WaltCip (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• That makes it a hate crime. But the 'routine' aspect you cite is the reason I don't support this more strongly. If it isn't posted it won't bother me. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note that this was not a church, and that any other "soft" target could have been attacked and the same thing done - the target was not chosen specifically for political purposes (unlike the Charleston church shooting) -- Callinus (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per The Rambling Man's reasoning. The nominator has apparently tried to explain how the United States are different than Afghanistan and how each shooting is sui generis but there is nothing compelling beyond this tragic event that makes me think something would change in the future. Shooting incidents in countries like the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are fairly common, meaning that these countries are similar in it regardless of the different incentives for all these incidenents. School shootings, which constitute the largest portion of all shooting incidents in the country over the last couple of years, are even less significant than other shootings, as they occur on recurrent basis and the incentives for each of them remain very unclear, implying that they don't have the potential to trigger other subsequent incidents. For example, the Charleston church shooting was a shooting incident with almost the same casualities but it was an unusual shooting of racial character that lead to multiple subsequent events and harsh community response. Sociologically, school shootings as example of a social deviance in the American society should have already been brought to resolution on a highest level by the authorities but, unfortunately, the authorities haven't done anything yet to tackle this deviance. That said, they either: 1) don't prioritise the problem with shooting incidents and thereby consider them as routine acts in the society or 2) don't want to restrict the freedom on the market of weapons because of the extremely high potential losses in the industry. In conclusion, a news regarding the school shootings in the United States that is worth posting is definitely not a shooting with a high death toll but a law or regulation (e.g. restrictions in the possession of weapons) that would prevent them in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly. As it is, the obsolete Second Amendment almost always backfires by not protecting those whom it's supposed to protect: whenever a shooting occurs, it turns out no one around is armed to respond. Either some strict gun control legislation or the repeal of the Second Amendment would be newsworthy. Brandmeister^talk 12:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I misread "newsworthy" as "necessary". But I think both applies in this case. Why is taking so bloody long?--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

September 30

---

[Withdrawn] Update: Volkswagen's new CEO, Oliver Blume

WITHDRAWN:

--George Ho (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Sources like Bloomberg and Motor Trend report Oliver Blume as Volkswagen's new appointed CEO amid its emissions scandal. Shall we include it without hassle? --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have misread. Mueller is still CEO of Volkswagen. Blume replaced him at Porsche. Fuebaey (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

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

[Closed] Tesla Model X

No consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Updated article: Tesla Model X
Blurb: American automotive company Tesla Motors unveils the Tesla Model X vehicle.
News source(s): BBC, Wired, The Verge, ExtremeTech, TechCrunch, The Guardian, Business Insider, Gizmodo, CBC
Nominator: SSTflyer (give credit)
Article updated

 sst^flyer 14:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Routine business announcement. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Well, not exactly routine, but not really news. Sca (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as a routine product announcement. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tesla has once appeared on ITN for allowing other companies to use its patents. It has not appeared on ITN for product launches, of which they have had several.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

[Posted] Russian air strikes in Syria

Articles: Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War and Syrian Civil War
Blurb: Russia begins air strikes against Islamic State in Syria.
Alternative blurb: Russia begins air strikes against anti-government forces in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad's government.
Alternative blurb II: Russia begins air strikes against Islamic State and the anti-government forces in Syria in support of the Syrian government.
Alternative blurb III: Russia mounts air strikes against jihadist Islamic State terrorists and reportedly against political anti-government forces in Syria.
News source(s): RT, France 24, BBC, Al Jazeera English, Euronews
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

 Jenda H. (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Russia formally entering the Syrian civil war is obviously a hugely notable development, and has already put much pressure on the US to rethink its involvement. Thue (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Just noting that the target article has been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War. At two sentences, it is far too short to post in its current form anyway, even assuming it is kept. Bencherlite^Talk 14:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I closed it as a speedy keep, since the article will grow or at least end up merged in the parent article. --Tone 15:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Wait – At least for now. Another tremor tumult chapter in the Mideast mess. Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb & neutral ongoing. It is a new development, but as of yet not significant enough for a blurb. Mamyles (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, support ongoing. Another development in the ongoing story. Not enough here to write a full article, nor to justify a blurb. However it does show that there is sufficient development to justify putting Syrian Civil War back in the ongoing slot. Modest Genius ^talk 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - we should not post the claims of Russian propaganda unquestioned. At best it seems doubtful that they have targeted IS, see for example The Independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.69.93 (talk) 11:09, September 30, 2015‎

Right, Russia claims they attacked ISIL but nearly everybody else say they attacked moderate rebels who have nothing to do with ISIL. We could say they attacked anti-government forces without going into the disagreement in the blurb. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - notable development in this story. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Countries bomb each other almost daily over there. France recently launched air strikes and no one so much as blinked. I am not seeing anything that suggests long term significance at the moment. If that changes we can revisit the topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  Well there's a fundamental and obvious difference between France and Russia taking part, but never mind, it's very informative that you consider the two to be equitable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support France and Russia are not the same. Russia's involvement with Syria is more significant, as the news coverage attests. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support though the name of the group should be that of the article (ISIL). It's not just that Russia is bombing Syria but that they have warned the US to stay away from its planes and also called for an international coalition. [2] 331dot (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Added altblurb, as it is abundantly clear that Russia did not strike ISIL positions and it has acknowledged it is acting in support of Assad's embattled government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Russia's intervention in Syria is a major development for sure and a clear step forward in the war against ISIL. The comments with strong anti-Russian sentiment above are completely irrelevant, as ISIL's presence is a much bigger problem than al-Assad's government. Even if confirmed that Russia extend military aid to al-Assad's government, it's simply because they both are allied parties in battling against ISIL. More striking to me is the United States' reluctance to join Russia in this intervention and their "willingness" to continue battling against ISIL without the legitimate Syrian government being one of their allies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone questioning the truthfulness of Russian propaganda and the claims of the Russian government is anti-Russian. The claim that other editors have a strong anti-Russian sentiment is uncalled for, and I would kindly ask you to retract it. As for your statements about Russia's motives, this is what the Russian government says and claims, but it is unclear to what extent these public claims reflect the real motives. After all it is reported that Russia's air strikes so far did not target IS, but rather the Free Syrian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The news reporting that Russia don't target ISIL's troops is the official position of the United States echoed by the Western (mostly American) media. Under the given circumstances, when everyone accuses the other for doing something, including the non-sense claims made by the US that al-Assad's government aid ISIL, the worst thing is to politicise the matter and blame the actions undertaken by the others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I requested that you retract the claim that I have an anti-Russian sentiment. Could you please do so, or is that the way you conduct discussions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't blame particularly you but, if you insist so, the use of the words "Russian propaganda" in all comments posted by a single user doesn't convince one to have different opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Just wow. I am not anti-Russian, for your interest, and given your new comment I am expecting an apology from you. It' not your right to accuse other editors of being anti-russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.73.242 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support big news and even bigger news trying to determine exactly who the Russians are targeting. Given that uncertainty, best if we used an alt blurb which just talks of Russia joining in bombing runs in Syria... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have proposed another blurb which reflects exactly what is written in the target article. Russia join the Syrian government in the fight against ISIL and its other enemies (please see in the lead and the infobox). Of course, we may change it once the uncertainty of what they really target is cleared.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I agree with adding whole Syrian opposition (including ISIS) into blurb. The first blurb was added in rush and doesn't reflect reality properly. --Jenda H. (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Altblurb 3 – Ham-fisted Russian intervention does seem significant. (Altblurb 3 offered above.) Sca (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but wait. While this is definitely a significant development, we have to be careful with the blurb, because so far it seems unclear who Russian jets actually attacked. Russia claims it is against ISIS, but other sources disagree. Since we are in no rush (because Wikipedia is not a news media), we can wait until the picture clears. --bender235 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

That's why Alt3 sez reportedly. Sca (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Altblurb 3. Russian launching airstrikes is big news. Third altblurb captures nuance of current situation until more reporting comes in . -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Altblurb 2. It's the entrance of a major power into the war, and thus deserving of ITN. Supporting Altblurb 2 because the original blurb and altblurb 1 are both incomplete. Altblurb 3 calls IS terrorists and / or jihadists, which is not something Wikipedia should make a stance on. It's pretty clear at this point as well that Russia is targetting the Syrian opposition (see the main article). Banedon (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Objection: Where is the evidence, beyond the infamously mendacious Kremlin's say-so, that Russian jets attacked ISIL at all? As far as I've seen, they have exclusively hit areas where ISIL holds no territory (but the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups do). -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Like this? The Telegraph, "The Russians continued their aerial bombardment on Thursday. Targets included Jisr al-Shughour and Jabal al-Zawiya, areas under the control of Jaish al-Fatah, the Army of Conquest, an alliance of Islamist groups which have won significant victories against the regime this year. They also included Isil targets in Raqqa and Deir Ezzour provinces, including a Syrian Air Force base which fell to Isil earlier this year after a long siege." Banedon (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Obviously this is a big news item precisely because the Russians are doing something the West and the Arab states do not want. One may suspect there is more to this, you have to consider what all the fuss is about for making sure that the forces don't accidentally target each other. That's really not a very complicated issue, as there is no air to air threat from ISIS. The Russians are not even attacking ISIS and only bombing in areas where the moderate rebels are active. US bombs won't accidentally hit Russian soldiers, but perhaps the worry is that Russian bombs may hit undercover US agents. That would also explain why the US asked Bulgaria to close its air space. The US knew that the Russians would simply fly over Iran and Iraq, this would only cause a few days delay. But that few days might have been enough to extract some of its undercover agents from the area. It could be that there are still quite a few agents left in the area or that the US also wants to extract rebel fighters out of that area. Count Iblis (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - This source criticizes mainstream media's omission about al-Nusra Front's alliance with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, and believes that anti-government rebels are not as "moderate" as supposed to be. George Ho (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Altblurb 2: major news. 178.135.80.223 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Update – U.S.-led anti-'IS' coalition calls on Russia to stop airstrikes outside 'IS'-controlled areas. Added to article. I think it's time to move on this. – Sca (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a major move that is shaking up a war that has been a virtual stalemate for the past few years. And it's rightfully receiving tremendous coverage.--Tocino 15:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Posted Consensus to post; not a strong consensus on which alt blurb to use, so went with alt blurb 2. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 29

---

[Closed] Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P

Thanks for the nomination, and for the one above, but this isn't the sort of thing that get posted at ITN. Bencherlite^Talk 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Updated articles: Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P
Blurb: Google announces the Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P smartphones in the Nexus family running the Android Marshmallow system.
News source(s): AnandTech, TechCrunch, The Verge, Times of India, The Guardian, Pocket-lint, Gizmodo
Nominator: SSTflyer (give credit)
Both articles updated

 sst^flyer 14:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Routine business announcement. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Buy an ad. Sca (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Routine product announcement. Mamyles (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Close - Precedence dictates that we do not post product launches. I refer to 2011 and 2012 when the newest iPhone models of those years were announced. Both nominations were snow-closed. So too should this one be closed.--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. We do not advertise products; but if something actually news-worthy about these handsets can be proposed it can be considered (off the top of my head, we wouldn't run a new computing product but would surely consider a new FLOPS record made by a new computer). GRAPPLE ^X 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

September 28

---

[Posted] Taliban captures Kunduz

Articles: Battle of Kunduz and War in Afghanistan (2015–present)
Blurb: The Taliban seize control of the provincial capital of Kunduz in northern Afghanistan.
News source(s): Sky News, BBC, Al Jazeera English, RT, CNN, DW, France 24
Nominator: Jenda H. (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Taliban captures provincial city for first time since 2001. This is big event for whole Central Asia. Jenda H. (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Good article quality, notable event in the Afghanistan conflict. Spencer^T♦C 18:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support The first provincial capital to fall to the Taliban since the American invasion. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - This shows that Taliban strikes back and is on the move. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Talibans are at it again. Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Marking ready. Spencer^T♦C 07:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Posted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] The Waters of Mars

NO CONSENSUS:

In the hope of saving people time and energy, I'm opting to close this nomination with "no consensus" (vote tally was 18 supporting and 13 opposing). Arguments on both sides are reasonable, but the rationale put forth by opposing arguments is stronger as many of those supporting put forth little reasoning (the strongest argument I read is that science is incremental and this particular discovery/confirmation has notable implications). This announcement, in essence, is a repeat of announcements by NASA in 2011 and 2013 but with greater confidence. The only notable difference in this announcement is additional evidence that further confirms the previous assumptions/theories. The media often suffers from amnesia and picked up on this announcement as if water had never been noted on Mars before, which is contrary to the truth. Continued reports in the media appear to mostly be rehashes of the same story that was announced on September 28, so this event can also be considered "stale" to a small degree. If you have concerns about my reasoning for closing this, or simply that it's been closed in general, feel free to bring up discussion on the talk page. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Updated article: Mars and article to update: Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes
Blurb: NASA has found key evidence that water is flowing on today's Mars
Alternative blurb: NASA announces that satellite images show evidence of liquid water flows on Mars.
Alternative blurb II: NASA announces that its Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter captured spectrographic evidence of liquid water on Mars during warm seasons.
News source(s): Nature Geoscience The Telegraph
Nominator: Hektor (give credit)
Article updated

---

Note: Announcement of water on Mars, today and not aeons ago

Nominator's comments: Seems to me an interesting development Hektor (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Long March 6 and 11

Updated article: Long March 6 and article to update: Long March 11
Blurb: Long March 6 and Long March 11 successfully perform their maiden orbital launch.
Alternative blurb: Over less than one week, China successfully performs the maiden flights of Long March 6 and Long March 11
Alternative blurb II: In under one week, China launches the maiden flights of Long March 6 and Long March 11
News source(s): spaceflightnow
Nominator: Hektor (give credit)
Article updated

---

Note: Maiden flights of new launchers are generally ITN

Nominator's comments: And two new launchers in less than one week is an impressive feat. Also LM-6 marks the transition of China to kerosene propulsion. Hektor (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• General support but I feel the articles are lacking. For example both mention payloads but what are they for? The articles both need expansion before this can be ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I just checked the zhwiki versions of the two articles and they are no better, so we cannot expand these articles by translation from Chinese Wikipedia. sst^flyer 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a good chance of a Long March program summary article? --MASEM (t) 16:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Masem, this seems significant but both articles are stubs, and the payload lists on both are all redlinks with no summary. The rocket performance details are the strongest point in the current article but most front page readers aren't likely to gain much from that alone. That said, I'd like to see this posted, because rockets. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• The ITNR list has first launches of a type of rocket listed. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • ITNR does not guarantee posting if the article(s) quality is not up to par, which is the case here. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree; I just mentioned it because it hadn't been. The quality issues are obviously valid. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• No need to support as this is on ITNR. It should go up once the articles are in shape, but at the moment they're both uninformative stubs. Not the sort of thing we want to show off on the Main Page. If we get some actual referenced articles before this goes stale then it can go up. Modest Genius ^talk 09:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on articles as it is at the moment. -- KTC (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment As a close follower of Chinese spaceflight, the reason that there isn't more information on both pages is that the Chinese really don't like to talk about both of them. Unlike the development of their larger siblings, the development of LM-6 has been in tight wraps and almost nothing is known about the LM-11 (hence the lack of technical parameters on that page, because we have no idea!). Heck, the Chinese apparently refuse to show any photos of the LM-11 first launch because it apparently uses a TEL launcher car (in contrast with the Russians, which have no problem showing off their Topol-M TEL)! Given how little the Chinese have released, the current articles are probably as best as they could right now. Alas, that doesn't really give them a chance on the front page. On the other hand, when the Long March 7 and Long March 5 rockets fly next year, I think they have a much better chance because the Chinese do show them off a lot as their next generation flagship rockets. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I fully appreciate that because the Chinese generally don't broadcast their scientific achievements, that we can't really develop the articles. I will point to my previous suggestion: What if we use Long March (rocket family) as the target article, which does need clean up but is more complete about the program, with the two above articles as non-bolded links for that? --MASEM (t) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It is certainly unfortunate that China is so secretive about it's space programme, but ITN exists to highlight decent-quality Wikipedia articles that have been updated to reflect recent news. If there isn't enough information to update the article, there is nothing ITN can do with it. Shifting the bold link to Long March (rocket family) might help, but that article would still need several sentences of update on the new launches. That might still be impossible if there simply aren't any available sources. Modest Genius ^talk 10:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

[Posted] Astrosat

Article: Astrosat
Blurb: India launches its first ever astronomical satellite, Astrosat.
Alternative blurb: The Indian Space Research Organisation launches Astrosat, India's first space telescope.
News source(s): Time, BBC, Nature
Nominator: Banedon (give credit)

 Banedon (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support once a couple of unreferenced grafs are properly cited and a copyvio scan is performed. The article generally looks to be in good shape, provided it isn't ripped off from a non-public domain source, and notability for a nation's first satellite of this type seems clear. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Kudzu1. Something on the way the article is written smells of a scientific-like press release but that could also just be some writing that needs improvement. --MASEM (t) 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support when ready. It needs a little work on sourcing but overall it looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as non-notable. India sent a satellite to Mars just recently, which is a significantly more challenging task. This is comparatively weak tea. Are we going to post every odd satellite launch (numbering in the dozens per year), or accept that such pigeonholing is a suitable replacement for actual firsts?128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support in principle. This would be significant enough even if it was launched by Nasa or Esa, but being ISRO's first space observatory just makes it even more notable. However, the article could use some work - there are unreferenced sections and paragraphs, questionable prose, and a general lack of quality. Should be plenty of sources now to bring this up to scratch. Modest Genius ^talk 09:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support when ready. Per the others above.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Added an alt-blurb which makes a bit clearer what Astrosat is. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Notable feat for India and its space industry. Good article. --Tocino 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note – Once the "Ground support" and "Participants" sections are referenced, this will be good to go. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 09:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

RD: Phil Woods

Article: Phil Woods
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR NY Times
Nominator: Shoy (give credit)

---

Note: Called a "top" saxophonist, "revered" and a "legend" by sources. 4 Grammies and a NEA Jazz Masters lifetime award. Long and storied career.

 shoy (reactions) 12:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Multiple Grammy Award winner with a distinguished international career. Article can use a bit of lovin'. Good nomination. Jusdafax 13:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support – Desperately needs sourcing improvements, but worth posting once this issue is addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Notable enough for RD, with four-time Grammy Award winner. Dearth of inline cites though; Unreferenced discography and an almost unsourced biography section. The only cited parts seem to be his Grammy wins and his brief personal life. Fuebaey (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

September 27

---

[closed] Catalonia election

CLOSED FOR NOW:

Consensus is not to post this election result at this time. There's a general feeling, even among the opposition, that the Catalonian independence/sovereignty movement is an active, newsworthy story, but that this specific moment in it is not the right one to post to ITN. --Jayron32 14:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Article: Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015
Blurb: The pro-independence parties Junts pel Sí and Candidatura d'Unitat Popular win a majority of seats in the Catalonian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb: The pro-independence parties Together for Yes and Popular Unity Candidacy win a majority of seats in the Catalonian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb II: Pro-independence parties win a majority of seats in the Catalonian parliamentary election.
News source(s): Guardian
Nominator: Smurrayinchester (give credit)

Nominator's comments: Normally, a state election wouldn't be notable. However, separatist parties have crossed the 50% line, and have promised to begin the process of declaring independence. Per ITN/R "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." This is of course not an actual declaration of independence, which would be obvious posting material. Smurrayinchester 07:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the results were a little ambiguous. The pro-independence parties won an overall majority of seats, but did not win an overall majority of votes. Therefore it is not yet clear whether or how the government of Catalonia will push its mandate. Obviously if it did make a declaration of independence, or if a binding sovereignty referendum were held, that would be newsworthy. At this stage it is more analogous to the Scottish National Party winning an overall majority in the 2011 Scottish election (not recorded in ITN, I would have thought), which created the mandate for the 2014 referendum (which was, even though the pro-independence side lost). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• I did consider the similarity between the two. The difference is that the SNP promised a referendum on independence, while the Catalonian nationalist parties promise unilateral independence (since, unlike in the UK, the Spanish national government refuses to allow a referendum). Smurrayinchester 09:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I would be willing to post a referendum for independence of Catalonia, but the pro-independence party getting >50% of seats (and not the vote) in the region doesn't necessarily cut it for me. If someone has a compelling argument in favor of posting, I'm willing to reconsider. Spencer^T♦C 08:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• There will probably never be a referendum, since the Spanish government maintains that it goes against the Spanish constitution (there was to be a referendum last year, but it was blocked). Unilateral declaration is the only option available to separatists, and one that both of the winning parties have committed to (although Together for Yes wants it in 18 months, while CUP wants it now). Smurrayinchester 09:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose this sub-national election. They may well intend/threaten to unilaterally proclaim independence (unlikely) or hold a non-binding referendum (possible), but equally neither of those things might happen. If/when they do we can consider posting, but for now we should not be a crystal ball. Modest Genius ^talk 10:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe 'sub-national' but an autonomous region with 7.5 million inhabitants - that places it in the midfield of countries by population. And Catalan independence would significantly affect Spain and the EU. I wonder even if considering nation-states (regardless of population) more notable in a dispute about statehood doesn't conflict with WP:NPOV. --ELEKHH^T 13:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Independence would certainly have major impact. So let's post it if/when it happens. Sub-national entities are not sovereign, regardless of their degree of autonomy (which is hardly binary anyway). If we simply went with the size of the electorate we would be continuously posting a stream of Indian, Brazilian, US etc. state elections. Modest Genius ^talk 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I think many state elections in federal systems with high level of local autonomy are much more relevant than that of tiny nation states with small populations and limited power. --ELEKHH^T 07:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The SNP were in the majority when the Scots said no to a split, so this is no certainty that there's even a popular majority for independence '''tAD''' (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per previous comments. In the target article, rather odd that the reader has to slog through 1,700 words before reaching Results.

In the text, the word "majority" occurs once, in a sentence about the 2012 election. Sca (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support given that in the past we have posted independence demonstrations twice and election results are far more important than parades. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: Analysis here seems to say: One thing's sure, the issue won't go away. (Yawn.) Sca (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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

RD: Frank Tyson

Article: Frank Tyson
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC (AU) The Guardian BBC AFP
Nominator: Kudzu1 (give credit)

---

Note: Article has some unreferenced paragraphs that need attention.

Nominator's comments: Renowned and accomplished English cricketer whose career was short but who then made a lengthy second career as a well-respected commentator. Death is receiving international attention. Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really judge as having little knowledge of cricket, but looking at the article, are we sure that the lyrics of the song are in the PD? Otherwise that's a massive copyvio. The article otherwise seems okay for sourcing and I would support assuming that others reasonably demonstrate that he was important to the sport. --MASEM (t) 18:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Good catch. Deleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• oppose 17 tests is not notable enough for RD. Even otherwise he doesn't have the global stature as Holding, Boycott, etc...or even the comic Dean Jones.120.62.13.133 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support best cricketer in the world in 1955 per Wisden. This is far more notable than the Hall of Fame stuff we see for every baseball/basketball/football nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support As a cricket follower, this is the sort of name I'd expect to see on RD. He played in the 50s and his name is still well known to followers of the modern game. His playing career may have been cut short by poor circumstances, but he was clearly a great player, and he had a supplementary career as a well known and respected commentator. My support is only weak because I'd place him below Arthur Morris (who was definite RD material), and there has to be a cutoff somewhere. (On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Dean Jones didn't make the RD cut - his main claim over Tyson is recentism, in my opinion.) --dmmaus (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the IP comment. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support - Although he wasn't at the same level as Marshall or Lillee, he was one of the fastest bowlers of all time and quite successful in the limited number of Tests he played. 1.39.62.111 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Shoaib, Lee and particularly Bond's limited career are all just current examples of "one of the fastest bowlers of all time and quite successful". Where do you draw the line if you were to set this precedence?120.62.35.224 (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Tyson bowled genuine fast about 50 years before Shoaib and Lee. He was also the world's leading cricketer, unlike Shoaib and Lee. But Shoaib and Lee would both be reasonable shouts for RD (in many years to come one imagines). The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does the name Johnny Unitas mean anything to you?--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but only because I enjoy sports from around the world, not just from own little microcosm of specialist games like association football and cricket and kabaddi and freediving. I also like Frankie Goes to Hollywood songs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just checking. I'm okay with having a diverse selection of sports at ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a one year best of six decades ago in one of the world's smaller countries not internationally followed or feted hardly deserves to be called influential or major. Did they change the wickets from bone to metal due to his violent slam dunks? μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  "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." The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  An addendum needs to be added to that rule which says "...except regional amateur sports, which are fair game for criticism" so that we can avoid the bitching and bellyaching that occurs at ITN anytime one of those is nominated and fails.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing any evidence that the subject was at the top of his field, other than for a few games in 1955. --Tocino 09:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Query I occasionally close/post ITN stuff, but not frequently enough to make this judgment call alone. Opinion is evenly divided on this - no consensus - but ITN is a little stale (currently nothing at RD, and I just removed a blurb from 9/20, bottom one from 9/22), this article looks in good shape, it wouldn't be pushing any other article off the page, and it seems better to give the reader something rather than nothing, so... what harm can it do? Is there any opposition to posting borderline cases when (a) there is a lack of current items to post, and (b) the article quality is not disputed, just the noteworthiness? If it was up to me I'd post this particular item. Any strong objection? if we don't do it now, we should close this, it will be considered stale soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  All good with me, RD is empty, this will get a couple of days... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

---

References

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

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