[Closed] New ant species

RD: Eileen Brennan

Nominator's comments: Iconic, decorated supporting actress with huge six-decade stage, film, and TV opus and own lead cut short by car accident, globally covered and recognized for her work by artists from Peter Bogdonavich to Michael McKean μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Long career with much recognition would suggest that she is notable in her field. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The question is not whether she was notable in her field; she undoubtedly was (she wouldn't qualify for an article otherwise). The question is whether she was widely recognised as a very important figure in her field. Looking at the news articles on her death and her WP article, I don't see any reason to think that she was. She didn't win any major awards. The articles on her death don't describe any great importance or impact that she had. They basically describe her as a moderately well-known actor with a long career. While praising her ability, they don't describe her as being very important or indicate any particular impact that she had. I fear that we are too ready to post actors who may be quite well-known (at least in their home country), but don't meet the death criteria. She may have been an important figure in the field of cinema, but does she really qualify as a very important one? Neljack (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I am aware, Glenn Close is the only other actress to have won an Obie, a Golden Globe and an Emmy. Brennan wasn't a shockingly beautiful lead, which seems to be the criterion you are suggesting for winning actresses. But she had roles created for her (Helly Dolly) Private Benjamin (tv), and was specifically sought out for roles such as Last Picture Show up to Cheeper by the Dozen. That seems to meet RD requirements. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(to Netjack) A Golden Globe and an Emmy are not "major" awards? Further, the great majority of actors go their entire careers without even being nominated for such awards. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the Golden Globe is for Best Actress, not Best Supporting Actress (as I had thought), so I guess that qualifies as a major award. But I stand by my point that there is no evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in her field. The fact that the great majority of actors never get nominated for such awards is irrelevant: the great majority of actors don't qualify for Recent Deaths either. Finally, since I have no idea what she looked like, I certainly didn't take her appearance into account (and it would be utterly inappropriate to do so). Neljack (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's exactly the point--since an editor has no idea what a celebrated vintage actress looks like she couldn't possibly deserve recognition. We need a little more scope here than just voting for our own recent and local interests. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. I didn't dismiss her because I hadn't heard of her - I'm perfectly aware that I am not very knowledgeable about TV and cinema, so I don't assume that actors I haven't heard of don't qualify. I looked at the article and news pieces and then made a decision. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For better or worse, being pretty is part of what makes actresses successful, and it's embedded in our criteria. If we are going by awards, it's 23 years, for example, since the Best Actress Oscar was won by someone who didn't have a tendency to make people dribble. Unfortunately, having been sought out for roles doesn't hit the right buttons. Picket Hollywood, by all means. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per Netjack.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per Netjack. Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose what Neljack said, on the other hand she is much better candidate than that glee bloke was. SeraV (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But not, as we hear above, as pretty or as non-American. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support in spirit an an iconic, recognizable, decorated actress with a very long career; though I note that this will likely age out before it gets enough support for RD. Still, I think she merits inclusion. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Quick acquitted of serial murders

 --BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - article could use some work in addition to updating. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Doesn't seem significant enough. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not American or British enough is what you really are saying. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, maybe if this guy was from some country I've heard of like France or Europe or The Iraq I would vote support. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just made your !vote nul and void as natonality is not a reason to either oppose or support.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, must be a slow news day in the important countries. But you must have heard of it, it's the home of that famous tennis star?! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, that place! My favorite cooking show host is from there. Gamaliel (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per BabbaQ, not American or British enough. μηδείς (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those not editing, there is a hidden comment in the above saying it's not notable since it's an aquittal. Medeis' form of humour, I guess.Fgf10 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Ofocurse an acquittal is notable dear Medeis. Something is not however not notable because of its origin country.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not worth updating either, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per the Guardian. Response to the hidden comment above: It is a notable acquittal; acquittals are not inherently unnotable. International implications as the murders were not limited to Sweden. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Major crime story, regardless of country of origin. Fgf10 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I argue that this is much more notable than his conviction ever was, since this means there is obviously something wrong with swedish justice system. SeraV (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For sure. If they had executed this guy as justice demands, the whole issue of appeals would never have come up. Formerip (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah my point was, that he was sentenced without any actual proof expect for his confessions. You think justice have worked just fine if someone is found not guilty after 20 years in jail/psychiatric confinement? SeraV (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you mean "there was obviously something wrong with swedish justice system"? Evidently it is currently working fine, by admitting the grave errors in these cases. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, fair enough. SeraV (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the circumstances, I don't see anything here that couldn't have happened anywhere in the world (except, maybe, the opportunity of re-trying the cases). Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support as nominator. even though it is not needed. In my opinion this is a case that is exactly right for mention at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, his exoneration has actually been occurring piecemeal over the last several months. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually news about these sorts of things should not be mentioned at ITN until completely delt with. Like now, that is why it should be mentioned now and not several months ago now that it is done and complete and Quick is kind of historic.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like there to be secondary sources on this guy. Right now it's all newspapers (primary sources). Is there a documentary or book on his case? Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read the article and look at the image you will get the answer :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newspapers are secondary sources and are absolutely fine, with all the normal caveats. Although there isn't much sourcing in our article altogether, and parts of it tell a slightly different story to what is in the Guardian article. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You say that newspapers are absolutely fine, but then say that there are discrepancies between the sources in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is book, Thomas Quick: The Making of a Serial Killer, which is pointed out and linked in that guardian article about him. SeraV (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess they'll all have to be pulped now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Notable enough, regardless of location. How many people convicted as serial killers go on to be acquitted? Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Is anyone planning on updating the article? Formerip (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] Hanumangarh bus crash

Telangana

Nominator's comments: Its not too often the world's most populous English-speaking country approves a new top-level political division. The state formation is the culmination of a decade of protest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damn you, bmy nomination ;)

Anyhoo, the reason I did not nominate this was the government has not approved the creation of Telangana. The Congress Working Committee approved it (and all sources are noting its partisan politics for the election). There is a lot of process left to creating Telangana. Remember in 2009 the INC-led government approved it and backtracked 14 days later after protests. That's a sign enough to wait. I've added all this to the aforementioned page at the new link I added to the blurb. I also added to Indian general election, 2014#Issues

CNN-IBN now also saying the bill won't be tabled in the monsoon session of parliament, so that means even the proposal for bill , let alone debate (which is more open), is months away.Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question. This is obviously massive news, but I'm unsure as to the timing. Do we post now? When the state is formally created? Both times? My question is therefore whether we have posted anything relating to Scottish independence as of yet? I know this is not a direct comparison, but the answer to that question would affect my opinion, and probably other people's too. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well nothing had happened yet. Only a ruling party committee had indicated for partisan decisions to create this state (and the reactions indicate this from opposing parties, as well as the media). They have indicated a willingness to propose this to the cabinet/parliament who THEN decide after [ostensibly] non-partisan deliberations which is several months away. As said 4 years ago the same thing happened and was rescinded. The attached WSJ links indicates this saying "Ruling party..."

Secondly, no we did not post the decision for the Alba referendum.Lihaas (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that response Lihaas. The Scotland comparison is certainly a factor, but not the only one. There's no doubt that the creation of the new state would be ITN, but even kick-starting the process is a huge political shake-up (in the same way that discovering that the UK might not exist in 2015 was pretty damn big). What I'm trying to decide is whether "being huge" qualifies it for ITN, regardless of what has actually happened. It's a toss-up. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose When it is actually approved yes, but not until then. Neljack (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment reworded blurb to indicate it is not Iindia that made the approvalLihaas (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wait until the state/territory actually becomes a state. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait until final approval of this proposal, which looks like it will be next year. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait until the new state is actually created. -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: the blurb needs to explain what on Earth Telangana is. 'a new state of India' or similar would help. Modest Genius ^talk 12:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having read a bit more, we should wait until this is formally and finally approved (and possibly until it actually happens). Modest Genius ^talk 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Big news, but this particular step isn't yet. Gamaliel (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bradley Manning verdict

Nominator's comments: I assume people will be interested in this. --Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oppose the more notable part would have been his treason charges. This is more straightforward. Perhaps wait to see his punishment.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - The verdict, including acquittal on "aiding the enemy" (which is believe was the treason charge) is a significant development in a long-simmering news story. When the sentence is announced, the ITN blurb can be updated. I prefer a blurb that clarifies what he did, like: Bradley Manning is acquitted of aiding the enemy but convicted of other charges related to giving classified documents to WikiLeaks --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose No traitors on the frontpage, please. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Acquitted. Your emotional response can be taken as a reason to post. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it cant be taken as a support. Using that logic the IP below "there shouldn't be any debate, it's big news" should be taken as an oppose. Really both should be null and void then , if you wish. Still leaning towards consensus. Just needs an updateLihaas (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support the story – this is widely accepted by those on both sides as being one of the biggest intelligence leaks in history. I think leading with acquitted and bold linking it might come across as a bit one-sided though. We need to incorporate both the conviction and the aquittal, so I would suggest leading with one, and then bold-linking the second. Admittedly not the way we normally do things (we normally bold link at the first opportunity), but in this instance I think trying to maintain NPOV trumps convention. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alternatively, we could go with Bradley Manning is acquitted of aiding the enemy but convicted of other charges. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - there shouldn't be any debate, it's big news 24.136.136.91 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I hope any votes based on whether the user approves or disapproves of Manning will be disregarded. Regardless of what one thinks of his actions, this has been a big story and the significance of the leaks can hardly be doubted. I suggest that we add something like "by a US court-martial", as we usually indicate the court or at the least the country when posting about court cases. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, very significant. For months the verdict has been subject for discussions and predictions. It has also influential consequences that may also affect Julian Assange. In short not an ordinary eventEgeymi (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, but think we should post after the sentencing. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support but yes wait for sentencing. SeraV (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait for the sentencing and the blurb should be along the lines of "Bradley Manning is sentenced to xyz after being convicted for leaking US govenment documents to Wikileaks". LGA _talk^edits 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose found guilty of theft is not exactly newsworthy. Only partisans care here, and we don't do partisan, do we? μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally what is newsworthy here is how USA and Obama administration treats their whistleblowers, Manning is not an isolated case. SeraV (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is slightly different to putting a bag of sweets in your coat pocket Medeis. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Verdict in a notable case followed worldwide(due to the Wikileaks association). Not wanting "traitors" on ITN is an invalid reason to oppose; we don't base what is posted on judgments about what he is(some would disagree); we merely post what factually happened to him. I believe he was never actually charged with "treason", which has a specific meaning per the US Constitution. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's not a traitor, he's a thief. I don't think we normally post thieves, do we? μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps we don't normally post thieves, but I think it depends on what is stolen. Would we post a hypothetical theft of the Mona Lisa? Probably. Would we post the theft of a few pieces of art from my local museum not created by anyone with worldwide fame? Probably not. In this case, he stole hundreds of thousands of documents with as yet undetermined consequences and damage to a large nation. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or maybe he saved this nation... Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

....which is equally as invalid an argument as saying he is a traitor as that is a political view. It is a fact he was convicted of stealing and releasing the information, thus he is a thief, regardless of how one views his actions. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He wasn't charged with theft and his crimes don't meet the normal definition of the theft (no intention to permanently deprive). Just sayin'. Formerip (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - update is currently insufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Editors' personal political views should carry zero weight. This is a huge story of worldwide interest and certainly worthy of an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 05:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - the trial has been intensely followed by media worldwide. The acquittal of the main charge is highly significant and makes front page news everywhere. -Zanhe (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Significant and notable, reported around the world and has continued importance in a number of fields. doktorb _words^deeds 11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - when/if he gets a prison sentence.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, and I don't mind if we post now or when sentenced (just not both). The blurb should definitely mention the Wikileaks connection, as not every reader will recognise his name. Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support when sentenced ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Huge story with world implications. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This article needs more information on the verdict before it will be suitable for posting. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This will probably need to be posted after sentencing. At the moment it is only possible to expand upon the verdict using one side of the story. The judge's detailed written rationale for the convicions and sentence, coupled with the government's response and the resultant debate, will enable us to present a more balanced view. At the moment, almost anything that is added to what is currently there is being removed on POV grounds. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] New Pakistan president

Nominator's comments: Wait till official announcement --Gfosankar (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A change in head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment the article is sort of cites with various tags, I have thus added the orange tag on top to answer these. (and the missing bits are important section to the whole process)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: I removed the last remaining orange-level tag as I think it's good enough. ITNR so no need to support. Can someone take a look, decide if they agree with me, and mark [ready] if so? Modest Genius ^talk 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Referencing is mediocre at best (see multiple ^{[citation needed]}). Update is woefully insufficient - I would expect 2-3 paragraphs on the results + reactions\implications, not one sentence and a chart. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support and Updating It is an important candidate for ITN, I would like to see the article expanded further. I would be glad to help. Faizan 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Article Updated The article has been updated, expanded, and fixed. Minor copy-edits have also been made, and the references have been fixed too. The article should be posted there at ITN. Nominated by Gfosankar, updated by Faizan 9:29 am, Today (UTC+5)

• Posted as the main concerns of sourcing is taken care of and it is a ITNR but please add a paragraph or two about any reactions or implications. Secret ^account 04:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok sure, I was the updater, and I have not got credit yet. Secret! I mistakenly undid my own edit here, causing the confusion. Can it be fixed? Faizan 06:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secret, the section about "Implications" has been added with a para. But as they were just the presidential elections and not the parliamentry, they did not get any significant reaction or an "aftermath". Faizan 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] RD: Ilya Segalovich

Libyan assassination

Nominator's comments: Similar to the Tunisia anti-Islamist assassination except that this has had more violent repercussions. Bit pov to post one and noth the other? Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is bombing whom? μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its on the page as factional fighting. In this case Islamists vs. secularists/liberal.Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National capital of where? Formerip (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was in the section title ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So does the section need wikilinking within the blurb? Formerip (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you mean, but I hasd since added it to the blurb/Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reading the article you get the impression the assassination and bombings are attacks by the islamists. The blurb doesn't convey that. It is like when you read "150 dead in religious violence in Nigeria" in a headline and then the article says one suicide bomber bomber killed 149 Christian churchgoers. The facts and the blurb should be clearer. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tunisia update

Nominator's comments: The original article update for ITN is still listed near the top of INT so I though this was a significant update and reaction to the protests./ Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The general election will be ITNR when it occurs, but I don't think the mere scheduling of the election is ITN worthy. I'm withholding a formal oppose opinion as I don't know what precedent is in this area; are the calling of general elections in other countries posted(such as the UK and Canada where they do not necessarily occur on a regular basis)? 331dot (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weve done it when its not a refular scheduled election. Likewise this was affirmed after the protests and the recent chaos.Lihaas (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose ITN deals with after the election, not before doktorb _words^deeds 06:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have posted unusual circumstances calling for electionsLihaas (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. We already posted the assassination, and we will post the election when it happens. No need for a third appearance. Modest Genius ^talk 12:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its only a bump/blurb update, not a third postingLihaas (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well them maybe you should have said that in the nomination? I support updating the wording (without the second bold link), but oppose bumping it. Modest Genius ^talk 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uumm, I did mention it as only an update. See above.v.Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] Jewelry stolen in Cannes

[Closed] Peace talks

[Closed] RD: Virginia E. Johnson

[Posted] Cambodian general election, 2013

Nominator's comments: I will try to do some more expansion and add some more references later tonight. The results are preliminary but will be confirmed finally in Mid-August to early September. However, this appears to be procedural, as in the prior 2 elections there was a 2-week gap but the seat totals did not change. --Spencer^T♦C 13:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tentative support until references are added. Some sections don't have any. General elections thrice the size of Ireland should be easy ITNR. –HTD 05:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Marking ready since this is an updated ITN/R. Spencer^T♦C 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Looks good, posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Closed] 2013 CONCACAF Gold Cup

[Closed] 2013 Italy bus crash

[Closed] World Youth Day 2013 concludes

No consensus to post. Spencer^T♦C 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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: World Youth Day 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 3 million attend the closing papal Mass for World Youth Day 2013 at Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro. (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

• Nominated by Gentgeen (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

 --Gentgeen (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose A lot of people, but nothing terribly newsworthy happened to report. Lots of people turning up to see and hear the Pope isn't exactly anything new. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of posting an event involving a immensely large gathering of people(in the millions), this was a gathering of Catholics in a heavily Catholic country to see their spiritual leader. It would be news if such an event didn't draw such a large crowd. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What's the difference with that with events such as world cups where there is an immensely large gathering of fans (indeed, this one is a lot of times larger than the largest world cup crowds) in a heavily <insert sport>-crazed country? Those aren't "exactly anything new", to quote the post above this one, either... –HTD 10:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It would be kind of nice to have something that isn't a variation of Something horrible happens, causing lots of people to die. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just wait for some sporting event. Beerest355 Talk 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose unless some other notable related event occurs. On the merits this is probably more important than most sports playoff finals and street protests, but I oppose them too. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I can see the opposers' points. It's too bad this isn't one of the 15 largest gatherings of people in recorded history. Oh, wait, it is. Gentgeen (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC

• Is that a support vote under the sarcasm? 331dot (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Gentgeen is the nominator. Spencer^T♦C 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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] Death toll in Syria passes 100k

Kuwaiti general election, 2013

Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Might want to say "an increased number of seats". Neljack (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: this is ITNR so there's no need to support. However, the article is missing essential information: how many seats were on offer, who won them, what was the turnout (both numbers and percentage), did the NDA actually boycott it or not etc. There should really be a results table of some sort (as in the article on the previous election) and ideally an infobox too. Modest Genius ^talk 11:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two days later, no article improvements. Modest Genius ^talk 19:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Publicis and Omnicom Group - And then there were two

  Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - major business story. I remain of the opinion that the correct time to post is the announcement as that is the phase of the merger process that generates the most press coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support. I'm torn between a desire to pander to occasional complaints that we don't post enough business news and an inability to see very much that is interesting about the story. Formerip (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oppose whats the landmark issue.? Its not a famous first.Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The creation of the world's largest advertising group. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since when has being "a famous first" an ITN criteria? 99% of what we post could not honestly be described that way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose of no reader interest, of no encyclopedic import, of no impact except to mid level execs. If I didn't know better (and I do) I'd swear they were paying for this publicity here, lol. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Your reasoning makes no sense at all. How do you know there's no reader interest? And how is the merger of two of the largest companies in a major industry of no encyclopedic import? -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - per ThaddeusB. Story is significant and ITN-worthy on a number of levels, including the ongoing trend of mergers forming gigantic conglomerates. Roughly equivalent in its field to Coke and Pepsi merging. Opposers reasoning fails to convince. Jusdafax 05:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - merger of two of the big three advertising companies is highly significant. -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Marked ready - support and update are good. I adjusted the blurbs to reflect the fact that it is an agreed upon merger, not a completed merger. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted Alt blurb 1 Secret ^account 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mogadishu Turkish embassy bombing

 --Երևանցի ^talk 03:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The number of fatalities varies from source to source. CNN says 6, Reuters talks about 3, while some report only one dead. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is normal for breaking news. It takes time to sort out the death toll. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Attacks on diplomatic facilities are notable. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose The article was redirected to List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013. If it's not important to have a standalone article, it probably isn't notable enough. Spencer^T♦C 14:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per Spencer. Modest Genius ^talk 11:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miami hostage standoff

RD: Barnaby Jack

Nominator's comments: seems like he's top of his field from the articles EdwardLane (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• support as nom EdwardLane (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Article is a tad light. Most everything is about his death, and the presentation he didn't get to make because of said death. If the facts of his life which made him noteworthy can be expanded some, I'd support this, but right now I feel the article is a tad light. --Jayron32 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changing to full Support based on the updating work by Medeis, Deepred, Libbux, et. al. --Jayron32 12:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Even if he was among the top of his field, I don't think he is notable enough for RD. He appears to have been largely unknown outside of the hacker community before his death; in fact, he was so little-known that nobody felt like creating an article about him until the day after he died. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I was ready to vote no as not recognizing the guy's name until I realized who he was from reading the sources. I suggest editors read this article at the daily beast. Jack was basically the Frank Abignail of hackers, a huge influence on the electronic security field. The fact that there was no article on him until recently is absolutely irrelevant to the nomination and speaks more about us than about him. His death at 35 of unknown causes is also notable. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support made headline news in the UK, and as Medeis notes, unusual circumstances surround the death. Article could use a bit more girth, but no issues with just posting two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Due respect to the guy, but he was working in the tech field and didn't get a Wikipedia article during his lifetime. That actually doesn't say more about us than it does about him. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per Medeis. I don't think it matters if he was largely unknown outside of hacker community, if he was top of his field, which he seemed to be. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. He's just not notable enough or known as a significant individual in the hacking world. There's a lack of constant coverage covering him. I'd never even heard of him. While he is notable, he's not known enough. Beerest355 Talk 18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak oppose for RD, content to go along with a full blurb. If the sources can be taken at face value then he was clearly at the top of his field, but does not seem to have been particularly well known within it (let alone outside of it). That limits the value of an RD posting without an accompanying blurb. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree a blurb is called for since we don't have foul play as a known factor in the death, and he's not a sitting megastar, but I have suggested an altblurb anyway. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reuters ineed says foul play's been ruled out. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per Medeis though the article seems a bit thin. Still, this is a good call for ITN RD, in my view, and not a candidate for a full blurb, which is for really major recent deaths, the way it has evolved. Jusdafax 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Updated the article is technically well updated as new, and I have added two new sections while condensing some headers. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Death section is still really light, any chance of expanding that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I could quote two sentences from the beast as reaction, maybe later tonight, have family flying in and an uncomfortable dinner with the inlaws pendiing. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Well good luck with the in-laws... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Flight delayed two hours (yay!)
• Oppose There are very few hackers who are significant to be in RD and this one is not. As for hackers, compared to Kevin Mitnick and Gary McKinnon, Jack is nowhere in their level of significance. Donnie Park (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Update I have updated the death section to five sentences as well.

"Not a Hacker"? some of the oppose votes here seem to be based on Jack's being a hacker of wireless devices, not of old time networks per se. Given his testimony is credited with having the FDA change its regulations of wireless medical devices, his fame within the industry, and given we have sources from the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, NPR, huffington post, the Australian, PC World, Popular Science, etc., calling him famed, celebrated, etc., I think the "I never heard of him" comments are beside the point. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reuters:

Jack was one of the world's most prominent "white hat" hackers - those who use their technical skills to find security holes before criminals can exploit them.

His genius was finding bugs in the tiny computers embedded in equipment, such as medical devices and cash machines. He often received standing ovations at conferences for his creativity and showmanship while his research forced equipment makers to fix bugs in their software.

I think we can dispense with the notion that someone needs to be a most wanted criminal like Kevin Mitnick to be a hacker. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I must say I was sceptical, particularly since I'm a New Zealander and had never heard of him. But the sources provided do seem to indicate that he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his field. And his death is getting a lot of attention - it's the second most viewed story on the BBC News website. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose It seems reasonable to suppose that if a individual is so highly notable as to justify ITN inclusion we would know what his real name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.82.208 (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since his real name was Barnaby Jack, I really don't see what your oppose is about. SeraV (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak support. As far as I can understand from article and the quote above, this guy was notable enough. Not having a Wikipedia article previously isn't that convincing to me. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Marking Ready we have majority support, a well-updtaed article, and broad world-wide support and coverage in the sources. The quality of many oppose rationales is lacking; personal unfamiliarity, newness of article, different definition of hacker, "not knowing his real name"; none of these refute he was the top of the fields of device and wireless hacking. μηδείς (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, come on. Since you !voted support, you shouldn't have been the one to mark this as ready. Beerest355 Talk 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second Beerest355. Involved parties shouldn't be evaluating consensus. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Medeis has done nothing wrong - it is common for users who have supported an item marking it as "ready" if they believe it has been updated and has consensus. This is perfectly proper: marking as "ready" is effectively just a tag to indicate that an (uninvolved) admin is needed to evaluated whether there is consensus (and a sufficient update) to post. There still has to be that independent evaluation of consensus and update by an uninvolved admin. See this from the instruction as the top of this page: "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."[13] Neljack (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarifying. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, primary sources aka obituaries appeared after his death, showing that this person was not the subject of analysis in secondary sources prior to July 26, 2013. Wikipedia requires secondary sources for articles, and this person's article may not even have survived an AFD. It is inappropriate for posting to the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure where you get the notion Barnaby Jack was not covered in secondary sources from. See mentions in PCWorld, Computer World, Security Week, Bloomberg etc. His paper "Remote Windows Kernel Exploitation" is also cited in various books, if not as widely as works by certain football players we have posted. Or, if your complaint is about our article, again, and not the sources themselves, it is irrelevant, as wikipedia is not a source. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was not analyzed. I am not complaining about the article, I am telling anybody who will listen that he barely deserves an article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Protests and violence in Egypt

Nominator's comments: According to the BBC, the death toll is between 38 and 100+ after security forces clashed (or attacked) Mosri supporters. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Update. According to RT the health ministry is now saying the death toll is 92 (instead of 38). MB is saying it's over 200 [14]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - I cannot think of a reason why this should not be included. DarthBotto _talk•cont 16:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Big story world wide, and the situation is dire. Jusdafax 19:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sticky? The problem with protest outbreaks is the next day they might be bigger or gone. And has Morsi not been charged with kidnapping and murder, or did I misread something? μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support sticky. The situation is relatively fast-paced, and there have been multiple newsworthy flashpoints in the past month or so. If the sticky proved unwarranted, it would probably be removed in a week or so, which is roughly how long this story would run for anyway. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 20:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support sticky per others. More that 100 deaths in a single day. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support obviously --Երևանցի ^talk 03:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support blurb, oppose sticky I think we should be sparing with stickies, and we haven't posted that many blurbs on the recent events in Egypt. A sticky is not very informative - most readers will probably not click on it, whereas a blurb would inform of this major development. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support As the others told above.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Article is now updated and alternative blurb suggested. I'd recommend having the sticky suggestion again when we have more nominations from Egypt, otherwise I think the blurb is much better for the time being. I understand that those supporting the sticky also support the blurb (or at least don't oppose it). Should be ready to post. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted I used a modification of the alternate blurb. -- tariqabjotu 09:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Murder so what about the murder charges against Morsi. is that not relevant to have in the blurb? μηδείς (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Of course it is (and so are Friday's mass rival rallies), but obviously the killing of protesters is more significant. How do you suggest we incorporate it into the blurb? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Assassination of Mohamed Brahmi