• 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)[reply]
• Oppose per Mamyles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose it's much better suited to a DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Nope, not important enough. –HTD 07:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose can't see how he was significant in his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No, not a significant enough player. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose definitely doesn't meet the criteria. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Article: Boris Nemtsov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov (pictured) is killed in Moscow (Post)
News source(s): [1] (Russian) [2] (Russian) [3] (BBC)
Credits:

• Nominated by Connormah (talk · give credit)

Added a BBC source too. RT has picked it up too it seems. Connormah (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Grey Lady has it also. [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support blurb He was one of the best known opposition politicians in Russia for many years. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Probably just the beginning of a major news story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support blurb per Medeis. The article needs work on referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - another Putin supported murder.... --BabbaQ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Support blurb this is an assasination of fairly important political figure. SeraV (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source cited above says nothing about "assassination". We follow RS. RGloucester — ☎ 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

That's speculation, i.e. WP:OR. RGloucester — ☎ 23:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possibility is there certainly. I just find it a bit unlikely. SeraV (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Top Story on CNN now too: [5] Connormah (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. Murder of leading opposition figure in Russian politics. Added a cropped image from 2008. Bruzaholm (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note according to al jazeera [6] Putins spokesman says that "The murder bears the hallmarks of a contract killing". SeraV (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Of course! SeraV (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Comment. Murder of Boris Nemtsov should be linked. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • The tag seems to have been removed already. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Posted - Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• Yes, he was assassinated. Abductive (reasoning) 16:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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". --MASEM (t) 17:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Yes, I was going to post exactly this as well (but got edit conflicted). Connormah (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed by Tariqabjotu now. GoldenRing (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.[8] 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.[9][10][11][12] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jehochman: 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. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. -- tariqabjotu 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Joshua Leakey (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British soldier Joshua Leakey is awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions in the War in Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Daily Telegraph, Time, Pakistan Today, metronieuws.nl
Credits:

• Nominated by Bencherlite (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · give credit)

Article updated

• Support top honour and rarely awarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom but also for the hilarity of the names of both the living VC winners..--Stemoc 12:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's hilarious about them? Modest Genius ^talk 21:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Thanks to Stemoc for uploading and adding the picture. Bencherlite^Talk 13:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 :  Chat  14:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  (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. Bencherlite^Talk 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Perhaps you missed the point again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Keep up with what? Stop being so patronizing. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep up with the discussion. Stop being so deliberately obtuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Ok, thanks, bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Post-posting Support per WP:NOTBURO. --Jayron32 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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. --Jayron32 15:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Well your objection is noted. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting Support. Rare and historic achievement. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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. Bencherlite^Talk 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Also now in Holland and Spain. Bencherlite^Talk 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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! 82.21.7.184 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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.... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Keep - it's different and notable.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

Soldier gets military decoration. Big deal? Move on. Seriously though, [16], [17], [18] [19] [20], indeed most of the highest gallantry awards are just as rare as victoria cross. SeraV (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, that's User:HiLo48. Keep up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. Modest Genius ^talk 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well agreed if this nomination is allowed to stand, but I am doubtfull someone actually would. SeraV (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could do it, should it happen. So stop complaining about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I am not only one who complains about stuff here. But your point is noted. SeraV (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(edit conflict)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)[reply]

Me too, which is why I said so. But that should lead to more caution in the future, not to pulling this item. Modest Genius ^talk 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Pull Systematic bias. wctaiwan (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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. Bencherlite^Talk 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're quite right, SearaV. The dead soldiers never seem to make the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's going to be lost in transmission....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, super rare? That's sweet. Do you realise how inane you sound like? SeraV (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Pull it - Larry Silverstein agree. Moorrests (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

No, because no one cares about Norway and its Order of St. Quisling. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment This was nominated when it was going into the vote (but before it was passed) [23]. There were issues then of it being too earlier for the ITN cycle but as well as being an ITN-worthy topic. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Article: Chris Kyle#Death (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A jury finds Eddie Ray Routh guilty of the murder of Chris Kyle (pictured) and his friend Chad Littlefield. (Post)
News source(s): CNN USA Today Wall Street Journal
Credits:

• Nominated by Everymorning (talk · give credit)

• 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. Bencherlite^Talk 13:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose relatively mundane legal proceeding in the US.128.214.53.18 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per IP128. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose failure to pass some legislation is not an ITN issue. Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Not of significance outside North America. Sca (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...which isn't required and specifically discouraged as an argument. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I'd have enough cash to buy the Outer Hebrides? GoldenRing (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose per all of the above. This can probably be closed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. [24] --Tocino 10:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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 _(ping) 11:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.128.214.198.85 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Oppose Not such a rare feat to merit inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Oppose. As the much rarer event of pitching a perfect game in baseball has been repeatedly deemed insufficient to justify an ITN (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2012#Félix Hernández pitches the 23rd perfect game in MLB history, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2012#Philip Humber's perfect game). it is hard to see how this event qualifies. --Allen3 ^talk 12:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support based on the number of casualties. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Comment. The article has not developed to the minimum length/quality required to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Support as a high-casualty, headline-grabbing disaster. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – Alas, all too frequent. Sca (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. Jusdafax 05:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a temporary removal covered under the ongoing ticker. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per μηδείς. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not a significant enough development/story to warrant its own entry. Bencherlite^Talk 14:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon article improvement. Seems to meet DC2 for rowing. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support - seems just as notable as Jerry Tarkanian. Looks a cert. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Tarkanian was posted and, despite several calls for pulling, remained up until replaced. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• Support, meets the criteria but the article could use a bit more expansion. Nakon 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Dude, let it go. He's supporting your nomination. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude, it'd be better if it weren't with a sleight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking ready. Article is in good shape now and there is conensus here to post. -- Calidum 22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, clear consensus to post. Nakon 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  Actually it's not the entire notion by any means. Topolski was himself a world champion rower, he coached Olympic teams (including medal winners) and he coached Oxford University in the most-viewed rowing event in history 15 times. He was a noted author (as evidenced by awards) and wrote for the British press for over 20 years as well as being a commentator for the BBC. His CV knocks Tark's into the long grass. Tark led a college basketball team to one championship. That's it. The only crap that exists was that Tark was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  He was referenced, directly or indirectly, in half of the "support" comments including the nomination. Tark had every right to be posted, just as Topolski was. It troubles me that you can't seem to get past that little fact.--WaltCip (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Tark didn't deserve to be posted, that's why so many people opposed it and/or wanted it pulled. I didn't mention Tark by name, we posted two coaches in quick succession, remember? One seemed reasonably notable, but posting Tark was by sheer affectation; his notability bore no resemblence to our RD criteria. It troubles me that you think winning one championship at college basketball equates to our RD criteria, it really does. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't be silly, Rambler, they don't even play on grass. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Only two of the 8 support !votes referenced Tarkanian.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull, Daniel Topolski's lack of notability for RD is evident in the fact that, before his death he had like ten views a day, and the article is a pitiful 8,000 bytes. I would like to give a reason better than this for pulling, but I'm opposing based on what's not there. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the consensus is that the article passes the test set out (" the article must have been satisfactorily updated and have no major omissions of the person's life and effect"), and as for your other point, be sure to let us know when the RD criteria change to include "how many page views did the article get before the person's death?". Once again, someone is confusing fame with importance. Not everyone who is famous is important in their field; not everyone who is very important in their field is a household name. Post-posting support - given his coaching career, he easily passes the mark of being widely regarded as very important in the field of rowing. Bencherlite^Talk 15:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of notability is not equivalent to page views. That would really encourage systemic bias! Article size, as long as it meets the criteria laid out at RD, is also of no consequnce. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, ITN should take page views into account. I think we should be concerned with making sure our front page contains information that is likely to interest our readers. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's entirely up to you to change the criteria. For now, page views is utterly irrelevant. Your approach would reinforce the systemic bias that is so prevalent, such that we posted a college basketball coach who won a single championship. And that was wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull per AmaryllisGardener and also per my opinion that TRM's loud and repititive complaints about 'systemic bias' are the main reason this got posted, not because it is an ITN-worthy event (which I doubt). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it was posted because it had strong consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  My point was that it got consensus because others have been influenced by your complaints. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's because his complaints are perfectly valid in this case. SeraV (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support TRM's complaints certainly in specific regard to the Jerry Tarkanian case and made my arguments clear in that discussion. I do think we're going to have to move on, but given the parallels between the nominations, comparisons were inevitable. While I do think some of the support !votes were a bit charged here with references to the previous disagreements, I think this nomination was founded on very good arguments that have nothing to do with any US basketball coach--including a long run of championships in a presitious event and a world championship medal. It's a borderline case for me but I'll support it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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