This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
I myself supported Ebert as a full blurb. Upon reflection, I increasingly believe that, while Ebert was about as notable of a film critic as could possibly be, his death wasn't 'what we had in mind' for full blurb deaths when we introduced the RD line. So I suggest we now move Ebert down to the RD line for as long as he should be there. I make no judgement, nor do I think others should, on the decision to post a blurb earlier as there was a fairly solid consensus. He's had his time on the main template. With Thatcher up there now and with a likely RD to be added soon, I think now is time to move Ebert down to the RD line, with no regrets.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of that but I believe there's precedent for nominating removals as a separate entry. I wouldn't be opposed though to someone simply moving this discussion --though in that case lets at least leave a note here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. He and Edwards show the high threshold that we should have for RDs, but neither come close to the standard applicable for full blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ebert was super-famous in the USA, but beyond that, not really. At all. His legacy will be .... limited. Edwards is not super-famous at all, but his legacy will endure forever. Both seem suitably suited for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's 2¢ I nominated this article for RD and was surprised to see the consensus be for a full blurb. I have no problems with it being "demoted", or kept where it is. Luke is right that it'll be off the template soon anyway, especially when the worthy items below get posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment My opinion is still that RD was introduced for exactly deaths like Ebert's. In my mind, what we saw with that nomination, was a wave of editors that rarely comment on ITN nominations rallying for a full blurb. Most editors opposing the full blurb seemed to be more-or-less ITN "regulars", and saw it correctly as a clear RD case. Ebert remains a largely unknown figure outside the US and apparently even to a quite large portion of the US general public. I would like to contrast this with the recent passing of Margaret Thatcher, who was one of the top ten recognized British figures of 20th century, a pretty major player of the late 20th century global politics and whose death dominated the global news cycle for a full day -- a clear blurb case. --hydrox (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I have to say I was surprised to see so much support for a full blurb in the first place. I don't think harm was done either way, posting or demoting. I do think we should have three listings on RD as the default state when we have reasonable nominations like those three pending below. Supports and oppositions should be relative to the alternatives--other noms or blank space. Blank space is bad, umkay? μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL apparently when the question is demoting a US item, two hours is more than enough to draw a conclusion, but when a US item has strong consensus to post after 5 hours and someone marks it ready, they are called "sneaky" for not waiting for Europeans to chime in. Yah, no anti-US bias here at all. (For the record, I have no opinion on full blurb or RD - that is why I didn't comment the first time.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...except that those two hours haven't been whilst the US is asleep, which was the case with the other one. Also, I wouldn't call Ebert necessarily an American item - he's obviously better known in the USA, but I'm certainly quite familiar with him, as I'm sure many movie fans worldwide are. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is fucking ridiculous. Good going rambling twat
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support full blurb Given the precedent that we posted full blurb for Ebert's death, there is nothing that sets Edwards apart from him. The fact that he won a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in the field of in-vitro fertilisation gives additional plus to it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ebert's reviews may have been familiar to most moviegoers, at least in the sense that every time there's a quote from a reviewer, it's always from him, but I don't think Ebert per se was familiar, as most moviegoers don't actually care about who reviewed the film.... actually Ebert's case is similar to this guy. People know about test tube babies, but they don't necessarily know the person behind it. –HTD16:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Muboshgu but the cultural and social impact of IVF by far outweighs a television critic. And will by far outlive the opinions of a television critic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the importance of IVF is more than the importance of Ebert, but this isn't IVF, it's the guy who worked on it. That's not the same. And Ebert is far more familiar through his TV shows and etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HTD has definitely a very good reasoning. Wikipedia is not and shouldn't be a tabloid to prefer deaths of people who were more familiar with their work in the media. There are so many important people that couldn't reach the fame as celebrities in the media but do much greater job than many others.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To say this Nobel Prize-winning pioneer of IVF is "the guy who worked on it" is an incredible understatement. And Ebert is far more familiar in the US. Not a ripple of recognition for Ebert really in the UK, but everyone's heard of test tube babies, haven't they? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid question warning. How do you expect me to answer that? How many people have heard of Ebert? Stupid question warning. Point is that Ebert's contribution to life will disappear in next-to-no time, whereas the man who pioneered IVF's contribution to humanity is beyond doubt. Four million children already, and they have children, grandchildren etc.... only alive because of his work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's only a sample of one, but I had heard of Edwards but not Ebert. Also, I don't think Edwards was actually responsible for the birth of four million children. He was just a bit of a boaster, like Russell Brand. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD but please note he is usually known as simply Robert Edwards - the middle G. in the article title is simply a disambiguation quirk. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a more thorough update - eight words isn't going to cut it. The easiest way to expand the death section is include some info on reactions to his death. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and propose blurb. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that he's the most significant figure in the history of reproductive medicine. And, I don't want to lay it on too thick, but we recently blurbed a dead film critic. Formerip (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb this is a development that would have occurred sooner or later, not an unexpected breakthrough--RD is more than enough. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is most certainly the most absurd oppose I've ever read. "this is a development that would have occurred sooner or later", that is true of every single scientific discovery. Well done Medies, you've excelled yourself today!!! Glad you didn't go so far as to oppose RD, one redeeming feature of your "opinion"! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I think perhaps swapping Edwards in for Ebert (Move Ebert down to RD) might be appropriate--particularly to avoid clogging up the template with RD blurbs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. I don't think Ebert should have been a full blurb, and neither should this. Death blurbs should only be for individuals whose deaths are front page, headline news and cause significant reaction (i.e. Thatcher). With all respect, this is more "front of the obituaries section". --LukeSurltc17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect to Edwards, but this guy's not Edison. He didn't come up with a whole new technology someone hadn't even conceived of before him. (Wow, that was unintentional!) He's simply the guy who was in that field when it matured to that point. Feverished full-blurbanists need to read Marx for how societies develop and Brave New World]] to see that this was competent engineering, not unprecedented invention. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Medis is "right", all he did was win a Nobel Prize for co-inventing IVF which has allowed over four million children to be born to parents who struggled/couldn't conceive. Not sure at all why Edison is mentioned in the same sentence, any scientific advance will be discovered eventually. Regardless of Medis' opinion, Edwards is acknowledged worldwide by a number of sources (dare I say) more able and rounded than Medis, as an IVF pioneer and one of the most significant scientists who has made a prolific tangible impact to Joe Bloggs. I thought this was "In the news" not "What Medis thinks is pertinent to the world order"... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, get on the AGF bandwagon and show some fucking respect. You can't even spell my name correctly? We've had the "do we list Nobel Prize Winners ipso facto" debate before, and the answer was a resounding no. I marked this nomination updated because it is. I haven't opposed the nom, but you have attacked me for doing so. I am opposed to a full blurb, and I have given my reasons, with which a majority here agree. You need to separate your emotions from your actions and stop behaving like a prepubescent. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your signature isn't in a Latin script, who knows why. You tried some strawman debate comparing Edwards with Edison (not to mention your overtly good faith "Up my meds, quick!" comment, brilliant!). Noted. Deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as an RD. (Note: I'm disgusted at myself for doing this to my own nomination, but an RD is simple, it looks like we have a very clear consensus for an RD, and if an extended discussion results in a full blurb, so be it). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to post it this evening; I was just waiting for a more clear consensus on the level of posting... Posting one's own nomination (and update) is a really bad idea. I would avoid it in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Blair, who continued many of Thatcher's policies, expresses irritation at the response to her death, claiming people are being disrespectful. Blair appears on CNN to reveal his admiration for his predecessor, calling her "a huge figure, a towering figure." (BBC)(CNN via YouTube)
Borussia Dortmund score twice against Málaga in a dramatic period of injury time and wins 3–2, securing the semi-final berth. The British match officials are lambasted for their incompetence, with replays showing that at least two of the game's goals – including the winner – were scored illegally. (The Guardian)(BBC)(UEFA)
Nominator's comments: The men's event is ITN/R, but not the women's. Bit of a minority topic, and perhaps a nice break from all the death and destruction currently on ITN? --Resolute01:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that I'm probably going against whatever rules there are for ITN by saying this, but the fact that major news outlets, and society in general, pay less attention to women's team sports strengthens my support for this nomination. Wikipedia should stop being part of the problem of ignoring women's sports by drawing attention to significant sporting events such as this one. I can also happily point out that we posted the 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final in February. RyanVesey02:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but at the risk of sounding sexist, I think that most women's team sports aren't recurring items for a good reason: nobody really cares. The level of competition is usually lower, and I suspect that reader interest in this item would be pretty limited (unless perhaps it was part of the Olympics or something). --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If people want to combat systematic bias (pro US, anti-women), nominating items like this (instead of opposing otherwise way more well covered events) is a good way to do it. Also, it would be nice to have at least one non-death item on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the low level of attendance to the same in football is not possible since ice-hockey is played indoors and football outdoors; the only solution might bi to get a proportion out of the total capacity of the venue or the stadium.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such data is available to us. Capacity of Scotiabank Place (seated) is given as 19,153: average attendance at Ottawa Senators matches this season is 19,244 (presumably some stand). Attendance at final was 13,776 (72%), for the semifinals 4,035 (21%) and 7,255 (38%). On that evidence, oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis? You just pointed out that for the finals, the stadium was filled to 72% capacity. That's exceptional. To expect the same level of attendence at a women's match as at a men's match would be kidding ourselves. RyanVesey12:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only 13,776 watched? Earlier this year, I saw on TV close to 19,000 people watch a women's college volleyball game, that's not in the U.S. or any country where whites are a significant minority. That's still just over a thousand more people than the women's basketball final in the U.S. That's actually less than the most attended regular season game, for some reason. –HTD15:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, to expect women's sport to be treated as of equal importance at ITN as men's events would be kidding ourselves. The world championship final, with the finalists being the host nation and their nearest and closest rivals, and they can't even sell 3/4 of the tickets in a city where routine league matches sell out every single time: that is rather pathetic. Kevin McE (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing women's hockey against the NHL is no less an apples to oranges comparison than women's hockey to women's soccer is. I understand the "lack of major coverage" argument for opposing this, but this line is rather silly, imnsho. On this argument, I fully expect you will be supporting if the next World Junior Hockey Championship played in Canada is nominated. Resolute13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the proposal that we put this on ITN is a proposal that we consider it to be of comparable interest to the most important men's matches. If they are not of comparable interest, they shouldn't be proposed here. To examine such a contention, objective measures like ticket demand are useful. I repeat the question I put in my edit note: according to the people of Ottawa, this game is less important than a routine league match,so why would we treat it otherwise? It is not of great interest to the people of Ottawa, even when their own country is in a world championship match on their doorstep: why would we think it is great interest to the readership of Wikiipedia's main page? Kevin McE (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason at all why this should be considered against men's matches. You are introducing red herring fallacies, because the "routine league matches" that should be considered against are either Canadian Women's Hockey League or OHA Senior women's leagues, not the NHL. And in that case, the world championship most certainly trumps the comparable league games by a significant margin. Resolute15:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What could be the limiting factors on attendance at the event? Interest in the event, interest in the sport, interest in the participants, or availability of tickets. It is easily proved that ticket availability is not an issue, and that interest in ice hockey and national pride are not lacking in Ottawa, so the only remaining factor that can explain the failure to sell out a modest sized venue is lack of interest in the event. And if interest is so sadly lacking, it should not be at ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support mostly because the article is relatively complete and has a decent amount of prose (moreso than many articles of this type when nominated), and the topic is a minority topic, and I see both of those as overcoming the shortcomings of the level of coverage. --Jayron3205:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis article from USA Today shows that this championship will have lasting significance. Women's hockey was at risk of being dropped from the Olympics for lack of competitiveness, but the level of competitiveness at this tournament has quelled that threat. The information needs to be included in the article. Can someone do that? I'm unable to continue editing tonight (and I'm not really sure where to put it in the current article layout). RyanVesey05:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. The article says that the head of the IIHF believes that the threat has been quelled; he is obviously a severely biased party here, and is just trying to improve the chances of his sport to remain an Olympic sport (which is only natural); but to report this as if it is a fact is completely wrong, and the article doesn't show at all that the championship will have lasting significance. It is the opinion of one highly partial commentator, not of neutral, reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's definitely the top-class tournament in a popular sport with teams participating from different countries, but unfortunately it didn't receive much attention in the media in the world. However, there is a firm base for this nomination to improve over the years and one day to be fully eligible for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Kiril; it's doesn't quite have a high level of notability yet or wide coverage (can't find it on CNN, NBC News, or BBC). 331dot (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The president of the UNGA explained that 82 countries applied to participate in this debate which is unprecedented by any other case and shows the significance of the debate.link --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once that nice jolly story about North Korea gets bumped, it would be nice if ITN wasn't all death, death, death. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unrelated events. Nomination somewhere down the page refers Sudan but this one happened in South Sudan-a separate country. We can't merge I guess.Regards, theTigerKing17:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support after update. This earthquake was felt in Bahrain, Qatar and UAE as well. This is perhaps the first in decades (if ever) that we feel in Bahrain. It also raised many questions and concerns about what could happen if the nuclear plant could be damaged in the future. Mohamed CJ(talk)17:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Velika Ivanča shooting (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At least 13 people have been killed and another three injured after a man goes on a shooting spree in a village of Velika Ivanča, Serbia. (Post) Alternative blurb: At least 13 people have been killed in a spree shooting in the village of Velika Ivanča, Serbia. News source(s):GuardianDW Article needs updating
Support as per above. A note on the blurb, we could link to Velika Ivanča, but at the current time it is an 11-word stub. As English-languages sources are unlikely to be available for a small Serbian village (information on this incident aside), this article is unlikely to be expanded unless there is Serbian-speaking assistance here. LukeSurltc11:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Something of a recurring article to ITN unfortunately. This latest bout of violence has occurred between the Misseriya and Salamat in Darfur, Sudan. In five days of fighting more than 163 people have been killed according to local media --Dumelow (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fight between rival tribes in Sudan, a not infrequent occurrence in this troubled region where tribal grudges run deep and resources are scarce. The other is an attack on a UN convoy by anti-government rebels in South Sudan - Dumelow (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above, and a general sensibility that we should make an effort to discuss all major conflicts occasionally. One point of concern, the article states "As of 9 April there has been no apparent government response." (I changed this from "so far there has been no apparent government response") Has there been any in the last 24 hours? I'm finding news sources hard to come by for this story, which I suppose is the nature of events that occur in this unfortunate region. --LukeSurltc19:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of, the government seems generally unable (or unwilling, many of these tribes fought as militias for one side or another in the civil wars of the past decades) to halt this conflict. Due to the instability of teh region news sources are generally limited to local media reports that are occasionally picked up by the press agencies. I will keep an eye out and update as necessary - Dumelow (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I know it's not ITN/R, but I think it should be. I know that NCAA title games don't usually get posted here (this one did in 2010 and 2011, but not 2012). I suspect it's the fact that they're not professional athletes that keeps this and the college football championship off ITN. However, it's big news in the U.S. The page views demonstrate that it's of interest. Just because they're not (all) getting paid doesn't make this less newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Football doesn't get posted because there's no real championship in the absence of a playoff system. There's no reason not to post this. RyanVesey01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As many commonly note, 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." RyanVesey03:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only because it is my understanding that only the top level of a sport gets posted, which college basketball is not. 331dot (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I thought there was a discussion either at WT:ITN or WP:ITNR that ended with the consensus that whether or not a sporting event is top level or not won't be considered anymore. –HTD03:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Europeans would even bring this down even more. "ZOMG NOT PROFESSIONAL", they'd say (but we've allowed not one but two GAA sports in here, because they chose not to be professional, which is the case in here too). It'll be better to say that this is the top level of a "sport of college basketball", or the very least, a variety of basketball. College basketball is different from basketball played in the NBA and the one sanctioned by FIBA. Halves instead of quarters (and with the team penalty), 35-second shot clocks instead of 24, narrower keys, shorter three point line, possession arrow vs. jump ball, no defensive three-second violations. The possession arrow screws up everything in the final minute: players from a team will instigate the other team to do a lane violation with them just to win possession. I just dunno if it's as different as say, test cricket from Twenty20, where once a "major" event from either version comes up, supporters all wet themselves for a massive support as if entire Ireland cares. (Well, Ireland might care about cricket more vs. basketball, but apparently not enough as it's not on the menu of RTE's sports website.) –HTD03:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is if the rules is as different as the ones seen in cricket. If it is, it is at least a "variant" just as what you'd call ODI, Twenty20 and test matches as variants of cricket; same with regular rugby and rugby sevens. Unlike rugby and cricket, the variants of basketball have different governing bodies, so I dunno how that plays in. –HTD04:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to compare it to cricket variants, but there are definitely different rules in college basketball that differentiate it from the pros (U.S. and abroad) and international play through FIBA. "Amateur" doesn't mean "less than top level" either, since players who are college third years or younger are ineligible for the NBA Draft, meaning there's no more going straight from high school to college like some, like LeBron James, were able to do. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In the United States, the NCAA tournament is the most popular basketball event. TV ratings are significantly higher than the NBA finals and the cultural impact is much greater. (That is, non-basketball fans pay attention in greater numbers than the NBA finals.) International coverage is decent (as can be proven if desired), certainly greater than the other non-NBA basketball events on ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ThaddeusB et. al. This is, after the NFL playoffs, the second most watched tournament (indeed, second most watch sporting event of any sort) in the U.S. At one point, a few years back, I dug up the Neilsen ratings to demonstrate this, Neilsen did a report which nicely displayed how popular the tournament was vis-a-vis every other sporting event in the U.S., and the importance of this event in the U.S. sporting calendar is pretty stark. I can't find it yet (still looking for it again), but basically this is the #2 sporting event annually in the U.S., and if any objective argument can be made based on a) media coverage and prominence in the sporting media or b) interest within the U.S., this event certainly beats anything outside of the NFL. --Jayron3204:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the official Nielsen report for 2012 for all sporting events. The NCAA final game between Kansas and Kentucky got 20,869,000 TV viewers, which places it third for any championship game, after the BCS Championship Game (college football) with 26,380,000 viewers and the Super Bowl (at 111,460,000 viewers dwarfs anything else). So, I overstated, it's the third most watched championship. For comparison, the NBA finals (the championship series for professional basketball) averaged 16,855,000 viewers; so based on interest more people in the U.S. care about the NCAA championship than do the NBA championship, by a 5:4 margin. --Jayron3204:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think the people here would support this (the #3 event) when they consistently rejected the #2 most watched event, has just recently tolerated the events ranked #1, the NBA, MLB and NHL, after failing to reject them before? –HTD04:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just part of my belief that decisions should be based on evidence and measurables. We can debate what constitutes enough news coverage, or where that coverage appears, or what data we think is worthwhile, but lets at least make this about such things rather than about what we have personally heard about, or not heard about, or what we wished people cared about (i.e. professional vs. amateur status) rather than what they really do, as demonstrated by such evidence (coverage in news sources) and measurables (TV viewership). --Jayron3205:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The entire tournament features players from all over the globe; the tournament is not just limited to American players. In the championship game alone, Gorgui Dieng is from Senegal and Nik Stauskas is from Canada. Elsewhere, there were players from Cameroon, Iran, Australia, Lithuania, Trinidad and Tobago, France, Nigeria, Venezuela, Switzerland, Croatia, Sudan, Italy, Brazil, Sweden, Tunisia, Poland, Germany and Cote d'Ivoire, just to name a few. SpencerT♦C04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaky Non-ITN sporting event, from proposal all the way through to being marked Ready whilst Europe was asleep. Must remember that one for future reference. Black Kite (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise we'll be sure to remember posting the death of a European politician while the new world was still having breakfast. Never forget. --IP98 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I knew some European would complain about the timing. Why though? If there's consensus among Americans to post this through normal discussion, why do Europeans need to weigh in? When I see a discussion on a topic I'm not well versed in, I stay away. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "some European" couldn't actually care less, which is why "some European" didn't Support or Oppose. "Some European" was merely pointing out that 3 hours from proposal to being marked Ready whilst many regular commenters would've been asleep is not the consensus way. Some European20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is blatantly false blatant misrepresentation; see my comment above (while the players must be enrolled at a North American college, they are not restricted to only being North Americans. SpencerT♦C18:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I used to think the idea of posting this (or the American Football equivalent) was silly - it only being a university tournament, after all. But I'm not an American, and after reading the arguments that have been made in favour (on this and previous occasions) I realised that I didn't understand the cultural significance of college sport in the US. The viewing figures, public interest and cultural impact (it isn't called "March Madness" for nothing!) is extraordinary, particularly for an amateur university tournament. The old "highest level of a sport" rule that has been mentioned has been abolished after discussion at ITN/R, and in any case it only applied to ITN/R. This may be largely of interest to Americans, but plenty of ITN/R events are chiefly of interest to people from one or a few countries (e.g. the Gaelic football championship). Plus there is a fair bit of overseas coverage. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a major headline and draws more interest and higher ratings than most professional sports. This year's tournament had high intrigue and a number of major headlines (Kevin Ware's injury, Rick Pitino winning on the day of his Hall of Fame induction, among others) and set an all-time attendance record. As others have stated, this tournament included many international players, including two prominently in the championship game, as well. Oren0 (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: not the highest level of a sport, nor even a level at which players at the highest levels of the sport are entitled to participate. Not even listed at [5]. Mere popularity is not relevant, or we would have Ice factor idol frequently on our template. A US phenomenon that does not generate large scale interest in media beyond that country (comparable to the Boat Race or Grand National recently in Britain, or the Ronde van Vlanderen in Belgium, watched by 1/6 of the population). That is different from "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country," as it is not about where it relates to, but where there is interest. Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely is the highest level of basketball that these kids can play in. They're not eligible for the NBA because they're too young. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at the wrong rulebook. I think that's for conduct of holding the games per se. The collective bargaining agreement between the players and the owners had an age limit of 19 years old: [6]. Kobe Bryant would've stayed in college for 2 years if they followed the new CBA. –HTD16:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See NBA high school draftees; players must be a year removed from high school before entering the NBA, and college is the "year-off" for all most all of them (Brandon Jennings is the only exception I can think of). SpencerT♦C18:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So any players over the age of 19 have decided to make themselves available for this event rather than the higher level of the game. Interesting. And is there an upper age limit on players in this event, or a maximum number of years that a player could remain here? Can players who have been in the NBA play at this level? And why is it that half the squads on each of the finalists squads do not even have individual articles, and playing in this event does not lead to the supposition of meeting GNG implicit in listing at WP:ATHLETE? Kevin McE (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK there's no upper age limit; a player can be 28 years old and utterly dominate other players and lead his team to the title. NBA players can no longer play here since they were already paid at some point/already got an agent, and as per WP:NSPORT, amateur players can only have articles if they pass WP:GNG. –HTD03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But on the whole, they don't. Which undermines any suggestion that this is a top level of the sport. So if it is not listed as top level sport, it can only be in as popular entertainment, which places this in the same category as Ice Factor Idol!, which we routinely reject. Kevin McE (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, the best basketball player in the world doesn't like being paid, entered college at 23 and wanted to play the full four years, and may not play in the NBA, arguably the "top level" of the sport (Pau Gasol would never trade his NBA title to an Liga ACB one, and Dirk Nowitzki would never trade his MVP trophy to the Bundesliga trophy if he ever has one). I dunno what Ice Factor Idol is: do the best practitioners ply of whatever they do there? –HTD16:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct - there is no age limit. There have been (rare) cases of people in their thirties playing college sports. For what it is worth, just about all starters on top teams easily meet the GNG and thus are notable. --04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That is about whether the top level event in every major sport should be listed at ITN/R. The present nomination does not rely on ITN/R, nor is it the top level championship in the sport, so I am unclear as to the relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in principle. How many times do we need to have the same story again and again every year? Seems like some users are persistent all the time with their point to prove that a low-class basketball league in the United States is better than anything else in the world. Sorry but the conclusion of NBA is sufficient for this region and no more basketball stories are necessary, regardless of the fact that the game was watched by 'X' or 'Y' spectators in this region and that it broke voluminous number of non-significant records. I'd rather like to see more variety of basketball stories from the other parts of the world and there is simply no room on the main page to make it a tabloid with basketball news from North America (mostly from the United States).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the event "low-class" betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how sports work in America and also of how basketball skill is distributed. Sports in the US do not use a class system the way European sports do. In terms of quality of play, the NCAA is secondary only to the NBA - a top college team would beat a top Euro Basket team, for example, more often than not. The rules are different creating a different (but related) required skill set. A fair percentage of top college players are duds in the NBA because their skills do not translate; conversely many top NBA players were not stars in college because their skills do not work as well in the college game. Indeed, a team of college all-stars once beat theDream Team because the pro players were less accustom to the rule set used. Finally, it is inaccurate to accuse people of trying to prove a point by renominating this again and again, as it has indeed been posted before. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mention that "a top college team would beat a top Euro Basket team". Really? Even if it's true, this is not place to contest that the United States is better than the rest of the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really. Euro teams are mostly made up of players not good enough or the NBA. Top college teams have multiple players good enough, but not old enough, for the NBA. And it is a relevant counterpoint to opposition based on the supposed inferiority of the level of play. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if an NCAA team can beat a Euro team that has players playing at the peak of their careers. Heck, Barcelona (Euro champ) beat the Lakers (NBA champ) a couple of years ago in a preseason game (that was rejected at ITN). The only criteria we should follow is ITN's, and not make up criteria on "tier 1/tier 2", if one team can beat the other, it's only played in North America, etc. –HTD03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I remain opposed to the posting any college-level sport that is not the premier expression of the discipline in question. I just don't believe that this represents anything outstanding. And frankly, we should not use page hits as a justification for posting anything; Wikipedia is not a source. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguably more popular the the NBA which gets posted every year. College sports in the SA are just as well-known as their professional counterparts. YEPacificHurricane12:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We go through this debate every year. Categorically oposed to college-level sports. NBA is enough. --Tone11:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the UEFA Champions League (ITN/R) the top tier? Or the UEFA European Football Championship (also ITN/R) is top tier? Or maybe the world cup is top tier? Or maybe everything in association football is top tier? --IP98 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how to define "top tier", apparently. What's definite is that "NCAA Division I" is the top tier of college basketball, a variant of basketball that is different from basketball played elsewhere. Until the early 1980s, NCAA basketball was "top tier" throughout the world. American college beat regularly beat "amateur on paper" European players. (The NBA was "outside the tiers," if that made sense.) When Michael Jordan from UNC graduated it went downhill from there... –HTD13:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So NCAA Division I is the top tier of the "NCAA League", and the NBA championship is the top tier of the NBA League. Post it up! --IP98 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sneaky way to search for a loop in football, but please don't use it when you don't understand simple things about the sport. Even if we consider that you're right, football is much more popular sport than basketball (not to mention college basketball if you regard it as a different sport) worldwide. The conclusion of the "NCAA Division I" with all the arguments presented here in terms of media coverage and impact on the sport culture in the United States would be similar with those of the 2012 Football League Championship play-off Final. Fortunately, the users from England and Wales (countries with teams involved in the league-system) were not insolent as their colleagues from the other side of the ocean to demand inclusion of something which is bellow the top-class competition in the sport. We even don't post the conclusion of the FA Cup which is the oldest football competition in the world and a significant landmark in the culture of the countries involved. To be clear, I don't live in the United Kingdom nor in the United States.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POPULARITY the argument "football is a much more popular sport" has precisely zero value. So we'll throw that argument out now. We have a please do not above about complaining when an item only relates to one country, so we'll throw that argument out too. Next, we post multiple football championships, each one important in some category or other. So I "don't understand the sport", fine, clearly you don't understand basketball. The NCAA Division I mens championship is very important in NCAA. It's widely covered in the press, and is, as this section would require, "In the news". --IP98 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand basketball perfectly, but don't understand college basketball. Please tell me what the game looks like and what are its rules. Unfortunately, my manual of sports in the English language is of poor quality and doesn't list college basketball among sports like football, basketball, handball, rugby, ice-hocky and others nor mentions that there is a such variety of basketball played anywhere in the world. Sorry but Wikipedia is not place to promote everything that originates from the United States. Like it or not, the English Wikipedia is not Wikipedia of the United States.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This (NCAA basketball) is broadcast on CBS, a terrestrial TV station. The Football League play-off final is on Sky Sports, and I can't quite make out on its article on how people get that channel. It says terrestrial but is on channel 401 with an audience share smaller than The CW's... –HTD14:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA tournament finale was broadcast (live) on ESPN Europe, which is available in dozens of European Countries. That shows that the game was of interest to enough people in Europe to justify broadcast, and thus not just of interest to North America.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any statistics that provide information about how many people watched the game in Europe? The fact that it was broadcasted on ESPN Europe doesn't mean that it was of wide interested without any figures indicating it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, you should refrain from using arbitrarily chosen arguments unsupported with a relevant set of numerical values behind it. I can tell you that some European channels broadcast handball in the United States which doesn't mean that the sport is of wide interest in the country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do "youth" tournaments get massive coverage on the countries where they are based? For example, how is the FA Youth Cup TV coverage going? Its article doesn't even mention on what channel it's airing. Compare this to $11 billion contract between the NCAA and CBS for 14 years; I don't think FIFA earns this much on all of its youth tournaments combined. This year's NCAA final had 21.57 million (out of 310 million) viewers (or around 7%). The only country where youth tournaments are followed with a similar level of interest is the Philippines: the 2012 finals had a rating of 8.3% (and it didn't even win its timeslot lol). –HTD16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"ESPN America also shown the Little-League World Series from Williamsport, PA and the Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest from Coney Island in Brooklyn, NY." From the ESPN America article (which is the name of the channel shown in Europe, and is redirected to from ESPN Europe). Presented without further comment. MChesterMC (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominate what you like. From what I can tell, The Football League is below The Premier League, and they're otherwise the same class of football. College and professional basketball meanwhile are distinct. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Please read what's inside the brackets in my comment. If you regard college basketball as a different sport than basketball, then this nomination falls far bellow any other sport-related nomination and should be even considered a snowball.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't regard the UEFA Champions League a "different sport" than "football", so, no, we don't regard NCAA basketball as different. Just another important, widely covered, widely televised tournament in a globally popular sport. --IP98 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I might be just grasping at straws here but, what the hey - why isn't there a complete reform of the conditions for posting sporting events? Anybody? --85.211.123.168 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose College sport not notable enough to be in ITN. Will someone post Tier 2 Championships of Rugby, Cricket, F1, Hockey as well? The event is not featuring outside US/Canada. Why someone in India/Japan/Austrlia/Brazil bother about a college sport?Regards, theTigerKing16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like has been said before, locality does not matter. Why do people keep using the WP:ITSLOCAL argument? Also college basketball is not "tier 2" compared to professional, especially considering that through third year of college, players aren't eligible for the NBA. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, an article from The Guardian: "the largely untold story is that the NCAA tournament is growing in popularity in Europe among basketball and sports fans" "Another reason for the increased popularity is the rise in the number of Europeans playing in the tournament. A total of 41 countries is represented in this edition of March Madness, with 19 European nations having players in the Big Dance." "FIBA Europe, even commissioned a preview of the tournament for its website," --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely finding it hard to workout whether that's cited in support of the nomination or against it. I'm guessing support, but... Formerip (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither really (as pointed out by many, the event's level of importance to Europeans is not really relevant. Just thought it was interesting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The tournament is a major news story in the US, with significant coverage lasting for weeks. While I do not know if it is a major news story in any other country, I think that something that is a news story of this magnitude in one country is generally appropriate for ITN (and I would likewise support listing events with a smiliar level of coverage in other countries besides the US). I'd also like to comment that I find it baffling that people regularly oppose college sporting events with reasons like "it's college sports", "the players are amateurs", or "not the highest skill level of the sport". None of that has anything to do with the criteria for including something at ITN. Either the event is a major news story getting widespread coverage or it isn't. Opposing on the grounds that you think the event hasn't gotten widespread enough coverage seems reasonable to me (even though I personally support listing this), but opposing because of who is participating and what their skill level is just seems nonsensical. Calathan (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most obvious oppose And why hasn't this been snowclosed yet? Not the highest level in the sport, and not even professional. Why are we even discussing this? Fgf10 (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC) And to add, might be a good idea to set up a sort of reverse ITN/R about stuff that won't get posted, first nomination of course being all amateur university sport matches. Fgf10 (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only amateur and university because the US doesn't have professional development leagues for the pre-top levelers like the rest of the world, or even North American baseball (all North American top-level baseball teams have player development teams to about 8 levels deep, and they only start at age 18, unlike soccer teams like Manchester United or Santos which have teams all the way down, to 10 year olds or something (or 5?)) The top basketball and gridiron leagues are using the colleges to train their players for them, do all the work, spend up to 40 million dollars a year on them, pay their tuition and then give them away after 3 years. The NBA/NFL (top league) players all go to college. Yes, America is weird like that. They probably throw tutors at many of them to get them to keep a D average and the 1/5th of a degree a year advancement rate necessary to not be kicked off the team, and they all pick easy majors like American culture studies when they grew up there (seriously!, that's probably only useful outside of America), African American studies when they're black, or maybe Spanish when it's their first language. Also, America has this weird thing where they pretend they're there for the college and not for the NBA so they're not supposed to be paid. The coaches can be paid millions a year, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided a good explenation of why is US education system becomes a joke when sport is involved, and I thank you for that. But I still see no reasons to post? You say yourself that it is only a development league. Fgf10 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I do that ITN can be a joke sometimes when it comes to US specific topics, they will get posted in the US daytime, the US members will pile on a load of support, and they get posted before the rest of the world wakes up and has a chance to go "Hey, wait a minute there!" Fgf10 (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both were posted after LONG discussions, so you are way wrong. And or the record, the "joke" is that US topics are always given a hard time by editors such as yourself when comparable topics fly through for other countries (not talking about this nomination, but rather things like school shootings, politics, business stories, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much of the support comes from the fact that this tournament is OMGHUGE in the US. I don't disagree with that, but practice has been that not the top level = not posted. I might compare it to the World Junior Hockey Championship, which is massively huge in Canada - and is a world tournament - but has no hope of posting absent something ridiculous happening. Resolute22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(A) All the opposes are OMGNOTAMATEURSPORTS and (B) why do people always make comparisons to items that are never nominated, like World Jr. Hockey? Hot Stop(Talk)02:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to let people know, as of right now there are thirteen (13) "support" votes and ten (10) "oppose" votes...in case anyone was curious if there were more support votes or oppose votes. Andise1 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can strike the supports saying that "basketball is cool" or "per above". Please don't be offensive against those voting with oppose since there is equal way to eliminate all the supports because they use something similar as argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can strike an IP vote for saying it's "cool", but ITN rules say that being relevant to only one country, which this isn't by the way, isn't a valid reason to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very interesting to point out the situation that we're facing in the discussion right now. Please choose between the following two: (1) the NCAA is a basketball competition or (2) college basketball is a distinct sport from basketball. In case of:
(1) is supported, then we cannot support the competition because it doesn't represent the top-class in the region where it comes from (any further explanation would not be necessary);
(2) is supported, then the competition apparently represents something different, but the sport solely is not popular anywhere in the world outside the United States (not sure about Canada) and thus is far from being a significant one to warrant inclusion (anywhere else where college basketball is played? or any national teams in this sport?).
But the most irritating thing is the "hybrid theory" that is apparently bubbled by some of the users to claim that this is significant by selecting all the arguments underlining the two possible outcomes and pooling them together to prove that this is really different than what the others may think about it. And yes, some people are really persistent to wave something by using arguments that can support only the opposite. Pretty strange indeed, isn't it?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most irritating thing is people with no concept of something's significance dismissing the game because the players aren't paid, when that criteria isn't found anywhere in the ITN's guidelines. Hot Stop(Talk)02:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "isn't top level" or "being popular in only one place" require anyone to oppose it as you insinuate. Sometimes things have cultural significance that can't be measured by such simplistic yardsticks. I would call it "pretty strange" that "some people" can't understand that. (BTW, we list 2 European basketball tournaments when no one would argue that basketball is more popular/higher level in Europe than the USA.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ITN items are supposed to be of interest to a wide audience. An event like the NBA generates such wide interest worldwide. A world championship/series of a sport can be considered something of wide interest as fans of that sport would likely follow it even if it's not popular in their own regions/countries. But a college-level sports event? Despite the hype in the US, is there any significant interest in this elsewhere? Just because the event is of wide interest in the US doesn't mean it's of wide interest to the general Wikipedia audience. ChamalT•C04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unless I've missed something in the discussion, the statistics are from the US audience. There's no question that the NBA is popular all over the world, but I don't see anything near that level of interest or coverage for this. While the NCAA is certainly popular in the US, that popularity is limited to the US only as far as I can see, and I'm not comfortable with supporting something like that on ITN. ChamalT•C05:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the instructions above, specifically "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." Actually, several opposers need to read that section. Hot Stop(Talk)05:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hot Stop, I've already read that. If you read my comments, you will see that I'm opposing based on the lack of interest outside the US (which therefore is not an "event of wide interest" for the general Wikipedia audience IMO) and not simply because it's only relating to the US. ChamalT•C05:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That rule is generally applied to US sporting events, but when it comes to sports with far wider appeal that doesn't include the US (I'm thinking cricket and handball here, for instance) it is often conveniently forgotten......Fgf10 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were apparently not around when 2 "amateur" Gaelic games events were posted every year. Gaelic games? WHAT'S THAT? Heck even Upin & Ipin played basketball. –HTD07:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the amateur aspect does not matter, as they are the highest tournaments in the respective sports. However I would have been opposed for lack of notability for those, notably smaller sport than many of the other sports used as examples here. (Once again, the continued opposition against posting cricket items comes to mind. Fgf10 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's time for me to retire from the discussion because of the lack of time. Howev)er, thank you for participating and please don't get insulted from anything. It's still the way we use to discuss some disputable issues on Wikipedia. At the end, I'll be content with every solution that should be made concerning the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me what the ITN criteria is, so I can make a checklist to see if this passes anything? –HTD07:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they are Wikipedia:ITN#Criteria, to translate that text into different words, something needs a) a substantial update and b) be significantly in the news. The way we decide if a & b are met is that we have a discussion where people judge the update and the prominence of the story, and vote "support" or "oppose" based on whether or not the item met the two criteria. --Jayron3212:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The major criterion for ITN is its worldwide significance. One simple test would be the news being referred in major news outlets around the world, the other test would be intuitive something which affects a large swathe of people. An US college basketball tournament which has achieved little attention outside US does not really count as ITN stuff.LegalEagle (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Worldwide significance" has never been a part of ITN's criteria. Same with "top tier of the sport" and "no amateurs allowed". The last time something like that was a part of the criteria was when the clause "International importance or interest" was there. Now it's not there anymore... –HTD14:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Status? Is this really going to wither on the vine due to a number of opposes that complain that this isn't of worldwide interest? The significance has been clearly established in this discussion, with users such as Jayron and Thaddeus making the case in a much stronger way than I did. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I do home than an admin comes by and takes notice of this. I will also be submitting a proposal to add this to ITN/R so that hopefully it gets posted from hereon out without the off-topic discussions and locality opposition that's taken place here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She was a well known Spanish film actress. She was also called a "legend" by the Reuters news article. Andise1 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no evidence in her article, or in her article on es.wiki, that would lead me to conclude that she would be said to be "widely regarded as a very important figure in her field." Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) "After her unprecedented international hit in Juan de Orduña's El Último Cuplé in 1957, Montiel achieved the status of mega-star in Europe and Latin America." 2) "Montiel was the most commercially successful Spanish actress during the mid-20th century in much of the world." 3) "Her films El Último Cuple and La Violetera netted the highest gross revenues ever recorded for films made in the Spanish speaking movie industry during the 1950s and 1960s." 4) "She was the first woman to distill sex openly in Spanish cinema at a time when even a low cut dress was not acceptable." Andise1 (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity (of films she was in, not necessarily of her) and courage of directors of films she was in ≠ importance in her field. Where are the awards? Is she among the 100 most important actors in the world alive as of yesterday morning? 500? 1000? Kevin McE (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion one way or the other, but this would need a good bit of work to be ready to post. The article's only reference is a music video on YouTube. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I've read the article and one or two articles about her death, and it suggests she may be worthy of adding to RD. But, the page needs considerable work. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for RD, if not blurb. This is front page news (litterally as both print copies of the Spanish newspapers in Miami has her death as the front page news), All over the Spanish media this is front page news, bigger than Thatcher death. Telemundo just did a special discussing her career. Probably the most beloved and famous Spanish film actress in history. When it is mentioned that "She was the Spanish star with the greatest international impact until the arrival of Javier (Bardem) and Penelope (Cruz)" in the associated press it is huge. But considering she was a Spanish actress, the article naturally isn't in strong and needs some work before being ITN worthy. Let me see what I could do in my limited time. Secretaccount02:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? According to her article, she hasn't performed except in cameo since 1973. Nine Teen Seven Tee Three. Of course, I think that nevertheless both she and Funicello are valid nominations. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support based on the persuasive arguments above; however, the article has ZERO chance of being posted without massive referencing improvements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Annette Funicello for inclusion on RD, although I also agree that she is not quite significant enough for an actual blurb on ITN. Kurtis(talk)19:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like Alex, I'm not quite sure how a few movies, a few commercials etc would make this person significant enough to feature here. Was she noted as one of the best in her field? And per Alex (again), happy to be corrected, as I am personally entirely unaware of this person's existence, nor is her passing noted in any major news source I use (outside the US outlets). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC announced her death, despite their apparent determination on wall-to-wall Maggievision, so I'm guessing there's something here that I'm missing. (If, for example, these peanut butter adverts have a cultural and career significance like Anthony Stuart Head's coffee commercials, that would be a start.) AlexTiefling (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the UK version of the BBC News homepage, just Maggie there, no sign of this individual. Still not sure that "Beach party films" and "peanut butter commercials" and death after a long illness make this person "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD as the first Disney name who was publicly known as a star in her own right within her field. Before Funicello, the main Disney figures were known because of the obvious: artwork, voicework, publicity agents, and so forth. Also it could be argued that her battle with multiple sclerosis made the public more aware of that deadly disease, like Lou Gehrig with ALS. Secretaccount20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'm still not seeing worldwide (or even nearly worldwide) coverage of this individual, many people have died after lengthy battles with degenerative diseases and I haven't seen this individual mentioned ever before the UK press, of course, I'm not saying that because I've never heard of her she's not notable, but this is called "in the news" for a reason, not just "in the news in the US". Maybe some serious worldwide sources would help? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She may have been popular and widely recognised (like Clive Dunn, Richard Griffiths or Richard Briars for those of us in the UK: ) but this is the nature of actors who occupy a corner of our living rooms every week. It does not mean that he (or the three unposted UK actors named) were at the top of, or outstanding in, their profession. There must be well over 100 better known actors, possibly several hundred: how many RD worthy actors do we believe there are out there? Article gives evidence of no important awards, and her popularity was apparently never so great as to be a launch platform for enormous record success. Kevin McE (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blank The sole issue here is, does listing a blank space in RD serve our readers better than Annette Funicello. Those voting "blank space" have the wrong priorities. And if that Russian guy is worth nominating him, do so. I am pretty sure we have essays on other stuff. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CEO of the company that she worked for said, in a sympathy statement, that she was "a cherished member of the Disney family": that is proof that she was " widely regarded as a very important figure in her field." As I ask above, if the threshold sits this low (no awards at all according to her article) then how many thousands of actors are we considering RD worthy? Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Kevin McE. However, article is in good shape (solid referenced content adequately describing her life). SpencerT♦C01:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I don't think she had enough noteworthiness in her own field to be listed; as KevinMcE said simply being on TV every week (especially during a time when there were fewer choices of what to watch) isn't enough. 331dot (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least be honest. She wasn't simply "on TV every week". She was the lead female of a top rated show, and the lead of a series of very well performing films. By the way, I have nothing but contempt, personally, for the formats under which she performed, and absolutely no personal interest in her or her work. But I am not unable to discern that others loved her. We should be basing our judgments on user interest, not our own 'higher' judgment. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose - she stole my milk! (OK, this !vote hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell, but I wanted to get it off my chest). Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, who the hell are you? The key point here is that these are independent events, and whining about what happened with a different nomination belongs in the thread for that nomination, rather than here. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? If you wish to make ITN/C a protected page, then that would require proper process: until then, 85.211.120.118 has as much right to contribute here as AlexTiefling or Kevin McE (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had been about to second Kevin McE. Any comment which includes the words "the hell" in that way to a fellow editor, member or not, is inappropriate. If it had been directed against another Wikipedia member, it would have rightfully been called a personal attack. It is no less a personal attack for being directed against an IP, especially when that IP had in no way said or done anything inappropriate themself -- until he or she responded in kind. This time, I will stress in a different way that two wrongs do not make a right. - Tenebris 19:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.163 (talk)
I admit my response was a little intemperate, although where I come from 'hell' is not strong language. I do find it amusing to be called 'newb' by some who claims 4,100 edits but whose contribution log shows 10, all from the past 48 hours and mostly culture-warring on sensitive Irish political topics. That said, they appear quite au fait with WP procedures, so perhaps they do have an account they're not telling us about? In any case, I found their initial contribution to this thread to be sarcastic and provocative. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Call it closed, then. I can see how "hypocrite" would automatically raise hackles, although I would have thought the more important word was "not". On the other side, the reaction to "hell" is not exactly universal, to the point that if it were me, I would make sure of my readership before using that word casually. I know people who would react even more strongly than the IP did, and equally I know people who would see it as nothing more than emphasis. Btw, my true edit count does not show up on my IP either. That is the nature of a dial-up Internet line. - Tenebris 19:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support full listing. Was the longest serving PM of the 20th century, first woman, and had a significant influence both in her country and the world. Currently on front page of NBC News and CNN in large print. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is the level of importance we really should be looking for when trying to decide on a full blurb vs. recent death listing. I don't think there is much question which is appropriate here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support immediate posting as full blurb per "a highly significant event [...] may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." --hydrox (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral with regards to referencing the fact that she was Britain's first ever female Prime Minister. If everyone else wants to add it, go right ahead. Kurtis(talk)12:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God I said three Hail Mary's, so that should cover any need for an update. (Yes, I know she wasn't Roman Catholic, but I am sure she was a high church Episcopalian.) μηδείς (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support full blurb, but oppose mentioning her gender. That's not why people remember her, nor why she is such a polarising figure. However, the article should have at least a few sentences of reaction e.g. a quote from David Cameron, the Queen etc. Tons of media coverage, so that wouldn't be hard. Someone added it while I was typing this. Modest Geniustalk12:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. Oppose mentioning her being female. Even though I hate her, she's known for much more and it would be a demeaning blurb. Formerip (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too fast The article is barely updated! Per WP:ITN/DCIn addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death. We are not a news service, we don't have to get a scoop, it's not a damned race. --IP98 (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a paragraph pertaining to her death, and I had actually attempted to update the article just as I was doing this nomination. So what's the point you're trying to make? I'm somewhat confused. Kurtis(talk)12:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does now, and looks ok, but when I posted a few hours ago it was very thin. The reactions section is now built out. I fully expect it to grow, and the article is a GA. It's not a big deal, but I just didn't see what the rush was. --IP98 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss this part on WP:ITN? "A highly significant event [...] may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." --hydrox (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, Neutral blurb post posting obviously. Not every former head of state will get full blurb, though we could argue that her influence in the UK and globally was significant "enough". Anyway... --IP98 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we would likely post the death of the queen as well. I doubt, however, that we would post the death of any Governor General of Canada. I'm not trying to nitpick, just looking at it from an ITN point of view. --IP98 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Governor-General is technically the representative of the head of state, not the head of state themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Regardless of the vehemence of feeling about her on both the right and the left, she was undoubtedly a figure whose significance for world politics in the 1980s reached far beyond this cold, wet island. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone is aware, I did not post this comment. I was actually in the middle of adding a "death" section to her article just as I was posting this ITN candidate, but by the time I hit "save" there already was one. Every other attempt I made at editing the page was edit conflicted to oblivion. Kurtis(talk)12:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested rewordThe first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher dies at the age of 87. The word "British" doesn't take into account that she was also the prime minister of Northern Ireland --Andrew14:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chip in to opine against adding "first woman" or words to that effect. It's quite unnecessary (brevity is good) and doesn't sit right IMO. --LukeSurltc16:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[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.
Nominator's comments: World famous poet, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, and a notable controversy surrounding his death. The event has been covered by major international newspapers (BBC and the Guardian in the UK, Associated Press in the US, Toronto Star in Canada, Le Monde and France24 in France). It's also from a subject (literature) that rarely gets covered on ITN, so it's a nice change of pace.--xanchester(t)05:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I was involved in the Arafat discussion, but completely forgot about it. Withdrawing the nom until the results are declared.--xanchester(t)05:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[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.
A bombing in Qalat, capital of the southern Zabul Province, kills three U.S. soldiers and two U.S. civilians, along with an Afghan doctor. An American civilian dies in another attack in the east of the country. (BBC)(Al Jazeera)
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R. Collectively it was a bit of an oversight not to nominate it at the time. Quite ready to post ASAP. --LukeSurltc13:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced. And for what it's worth, the sections that were updated were as follows: "Race overview", "Finishing order", "Non-finishers", "Reaction" and "Broadcasting", so I think the update is more than adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, can we post then? It's quite a "cheap" update for us, and it would break up the series of death-related blurbs we have at the top there. LukeSurltc07:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Navel-gazing is an issue, but I think that if this gets widespread coverage beyond France, it would be worth posting. Resolute20:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - governments do stupid stuff all the time. This is a pretty minor example of such behavior outside of our world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One article, already restored. Strange behaviour on the part of the French govt though, like, kinda dumb. --IP98 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a more frequent DYK than ITN contributor (it's a lot easier for my pet articles to get in there aside of here, despite the bigger amount of work, if that makes sense), let's stop the notion that DYK is ITN's consolation prize. I know it stays up there on a maximum of 12 hours vs. ITN's minimum of 5 days, but the processes and standards are different... –HTD04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one. I just said it has a "notion". This will fail ITN, and will pass DYK. Therefore... 04:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with one being a consolation prize for the other, they're two entirely separate processes. DYK deals with new articles that meet a certain set of criteria, ITN deals with articles that are in the news. If you're saying that people should stop pointing articles to DYK if they don't meet the ITN criteria, I disagree with you. In many cases, the article creator/nominator won't be aware that their article is eligible for DYK so it is good to point them there. RyanVesey04:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I exactly said, them of different processes. Although you have a point of the nominator not knowing about DYK, though. He might've gunned for ITN, with the article staying for 5 days, instead of DYK with only the top hook above the fold and staying there for 8-12 hours. I dunno his intentions, though, so... –HTD04:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The English-language version of the article which was deleted from the French Wikipedia (ie. not the article nominated here) already has a DYK nomination, FYI, and this is being discussed at WT:DYK. EdChem (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Posting Wikipedia-related information to ITN has historically been a disaster; Signpost is the better location. SpencerT♦C01:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NAVELGAZING. Also, I can't find this as a major headline story anywhere. A short blurb buried in the tech section seems to be where most major news sources are treating this. --Jayron3203:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NAVELGAZING (really should exist). Separately, this is very shocking news. Which article? Why? How stupid are they? What's is the Foundation doing about it? Is there an appropriate thread open to discuss this? --RA (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A minor official got a bit carried away. A nasty experience for one individual, a rap on the knuckles for someone from his boss, and a fr.wikipedia page with tiny viewing figures is removed from public view for 24 hours. A non-event. Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this is just the sort of thing that happens all the time in the West then let's see an example of such minor actions by officials. This would be news if it were in relation to facebook or any other site--the fact that it happens to regard wikipedia, and hence "navelgazing" is irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Pretty straightforwaqrd new PM. Lebanon is one of th emost dynamic political systems so this is highly noteworthy, then add in ME stability factor... Only note is im not sure when he will be sworn in but hehas majority support/consensus --Lihaas (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New head of state is ITN material, typically. However, the updates are somehow thin at the moment. --Tone22:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theres several lines of sourced update in the bolded article (and the PM's article). Thats more than most postings..?Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only real update on this is the sentence "On 6 April, he got 124 of the 128 parliamentary votes to become prime minister and was consequently tasked by President Michel Suleiman to form a government." and that is uncited. Everything else is reaction cruft: most are direct quotes which were plainly copied verbatim from elsewhere. The article about person can be better without those, although it can be added to the government article, as those quotes are relevant there. The article on Barack Obama doesn't have other peoples' reactions during his 2012 election victory, although it did have a quote from him.... –HTD05:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of reactions, can't we get an idea if ever these people reacting ever had a hand on this? He was almost unanimously voted as PM: did these people who reacted headed the political parties that supported him? Did they whip their MPs to vote for him? That's the type of information that we need, how it got to that point, not what they said after all is said and done. Actions speak louder than words. At this point, the reaction-heavy "updates" do nothing to the reader... –HTD14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Former head of a national navy arrested and charged in a nother country's court. Thought its notable. Its not charles taylor ubut still.. --Lihaas (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very little coverage, does not deal in war crimes from what I see; just drug smuggling. Wasn't acting in his official capacity as an admiral from what I can read. Not much to the article, too. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
North Korea warns that it cannot protect their embassies in Pyongyang as of April 10. It is advised that all foreign countries consider asking the staff of their embassies to leave. (The Telegraph)(AFP via NDTV)
Doan Van Vuon, a fish farmer who became a cult hero in Vietnam after fighting off an illegal eviction with homemade guns and mines, is jailed for five years for "attempted murder in a case that has stirred public anger over state-backed land grabs." (Reuters)
Support. The article discusses the major point in a sufficient manner, the high death toll fulfils the notability criteria, global coverage, however we can wait for 12 hours for clearer estimate of death toll. LegalEagle (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per notability. NO reason for it to wait for another 12 hours. Any change in blurb could be adjusted later.Regards, theTigerKing20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Building collapse in Tanzania, 36 dead, no comments at all in 5 hours after nomination, no opposition, not posted. Building collapse in India, 42+ dead, posted 4 1/2 hours after nomination. Discuss. Kevin McE (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanzania building collapse was ~15 dead at the time of nomination. That level of deaths is borderline, so perhaps people were hesitant to comment as they were neutral on it. I know I was (and supported when death toll rose). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am still not convinced that building collapses are rare disasters, but I supported Tanzania which a similiar death toll, so I'll support this one as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not reflect that yet. The numbers should be consistent. But sure, we can update the number eventually. --Tone06:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Palestinian, Naji Balbisi, dies from injuries he suffered during a clashes with Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Tulkarem, a day after his cousin, Amer al-Najjar, died in the clashes after they tried to firebomb a checkpoint. (CNN)(The Times of Israel)
In Jackson, Mississippi, Jeremy Powell, 23, a suspect in the stabbing death of a 20-year-old male, and Eric Smith, a Jackson Police Department homicidedetective, who had been conducting the police interview with Powell, are found dead in a 3rd floor room of the department, according to Jackson Police Chief Rebecca Coleman. (AP via NBC News)
Nominator's comments: From the first lead paragraph: "He is the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, as well as the first to be awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RD Support - Although he was an undeniably notable movie critic, I'm not sure that Ebert meets the level of significance that I require for a full posting. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, or RD if that's what there's consensus for. I just saw this and came here immediately to support. While obviously primarily famous in the US and Canada my guess is he was the world's most famous film critic at the time of death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
S for full blurb I would argue that he isn't arguably the best known movie critic ever (his partner Siskel being his only competition), I believe he is one of the most influencial voices in Hollywood over the past 40+ years. Plus, he and Siskel's "Two Thumbs Up" became household terms.38.100.76.228 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Full blurb, please...except I do have do admit bias living so close to Chicago. :) All of the Chicago news websites are leading with the story, though naturally his former employer, the Sun-Times, is likely to have the most complete information. --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ready for posting yet. The update is not nearly large enough to the article to warrant its posting, even for a death. Let's wait until we get some reactions.--WaltCip (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb. He sounds suitable for the ticker but, I'll be honest, I've never heard of him or "two thumbs down". Please try to consider the nomination from a worldwide perspective. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Update -- this has only two bare sentences that could make one good compound sentence. There's plenty in the press about his movie festival still being held and comments on his passing. I have removed the RD designation since there is obvious support for a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull as noted above. The article is not ready and there is no clear consensus to post a full blurb. I cannot get the point beyond speeding up the posting regardless of the discussion here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see User:Jayron32 updated ITN. I've undone that change based on the correct concerns raised here. We can wait another half an hour while the article is suitably updated for a full blurb. Not to mention the blurb selected was hardly encyclopaedic in my opinion, that's why we discuss these things before posting them.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that when posted, at 20:28, there was significant support for it. Most of the opposition came after that moment. --Jayron3220:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that we had no agreed blurb and the nomination template was just for RD. I was trying to gain a consensus for a full blurb but you posted anyway. What's wrong with waiting half an hour? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. You continue to be correct. That hasn't changed, and I'm not going to concede that you were wrong here, so I don't know why you keep arguing, because you are still the one who is in the right. This isn't a competition, you know. It would be best to get this correct rather than to make it some kind of race. --Jayron3220:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A full blurb? are you kidding me? Absolute shame on all of. What the hell is the point in RD then? His death is not wide-reaching or impacting.--85.210.110.120 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of RD was to reduce the occurrence of the same old "Name dies at the age of..." blurb. But we left the door open for full blurb features when the case is exceptional, and this guy certainly deserves it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted: "Film critic Roger Ebert dies after a long bout with cancer." I'd hardly call that a full blurb. I might have amended it to say "Chicago-based American film critic Roger Ebert dies after fighting cancer for over a decade." I hate to come out grossly pro-american and offend people, but I think it's a matter of influence - he was highly influential to Hollywood, which is (for better or for worse) highly influential worldwide. If you think that that's too much of a pro-American bias, then I support the RD designation only. (stupid edit conflicts) --JohnDBuell (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as well. Certainly merits the mention. Also caution to wait a bit for the article to update. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb His death is not major world news with ramifications. The whole point of the RD ticker was to avoid such hooks. Whenever we have had discussion about what deaths might still merit a blurb in the RD ticker era, the threshhold has been much higher than this: it is quite ridiculous that we did not nailed down the level of distinction before RD started: even more so that we still have not done so. Full blurb in less than 45 minutes from nomination for a marginally known figure seems unduly hasty. But if full blurb used, please find another phrase: he did not have a "bout with cancer". Kevin McE (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if support re-emerges for a full blurb, I've prepped a crop of a picture (I was doing this between the initial widespread support and the later pulling after people came by later to oppose, the time necessary to prepare the crop was when the consensus shifted). It's at File:Roger Ebert Crop.jpg. --Jayron3220:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'd asked for a discussion about a full blurb, and a few minutes later you went ahead and posted one without consensus on any blurb. Please be more patient. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you are correct, except for the bit about there not being consensus. At the time, in my judgement, there was consensus for a full blurb. --Jayron3220:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Or possibly not, discussion in the talk archives is inconclusive if that was really him or someone just going by "REbert."] --JohnDBuell (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, I'd just like to point out that when he said he was sick yesterday, his article views spiked to 42,240. It seems to me that this deserves full blurb status, but put it in RD while consensus continues to be hashed out. Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that makes over 4700 pages viewed more frequently in the last three days. I don't think that really supports the full blurb. And don't cite the 800,000+ Twitter followers either, seriously, because how many of those actually regularly read his posts? I'm turning with the growing consensus, the greatest notability here is a) Chicago and b) the US as a whole, not the rest of the world. -JohnDBuell (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb. Normally I see news of deaths and go "meh". This one actually caught my attention as the name was familiar to me. Meets WP:ITND #2, he need not meet criteria three (death has global significance). Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose full blurb per Kevin McE above. It's exactly for deaths like this one why the RD was established. Ks0stm: WP:ITND criteria always apply, for RD deaths as well. I don't think this is such a world-shaking event that it would warrant a full blurb under any circumstances. --hydrox (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck the Standards This should not have been posted, it's not updated. And according to the RfC, nomiations that get votes for "either ITN or RD" count as votes for a full ITN blurb. So if anything this should have gone up as a full blurb. But fuck the rules. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To use that reasoning in that manner would be akin to saying that we shouldn't promote any high-profile death at all. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)01:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a facetious comment. Going off hits is stupid in the first place, but especially so when the article has already been linked from the front page. Formerip (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full listing. Probably the most notable figure in his profession; widely known and had a significant influence. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the death section should be expanded to include some reactions from notable people. When that happens,I am willing post as a full blurb (unless consensus changes) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
POV in blurb To say "Pulitzer Prize-winning" is too much US-centric since the prize is awarded in the United States to people from this country. I would sincerely appreciate more neutral blurb. Including prizes in the blurb is only possible if the prize is international and can be awarded to any person in the world (e.g. Nobel Prize, Pritzker Prize, Fields Medal etc.). Simple blurb like "Film critic Roger Ebert dies at the age of 70." would make more sense, as mentioning something that is limited to one country doesn't help too much in claiming his international significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Americans are eligible and have won Pulitzer Awards. In any case the Pulitzer Prize has been worthy of mention on ITN and thus I think is worthy of mention in the blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support post Full Blurb consensusEven IMDB had been running the RD as a red colored flash in its home page for ore than 5 hours.Regards, theTigerKing20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and remove as absurd! Really notable people are not posted, while an American obscure film critic I've never heard of is posted. Another example of blatant US centrism on the main page. Would we have posted the death of a film critic whose articles appeared in the Belgian newspapers? Danish newspapers? Russian? Chinese? French? No, of course we wouldn't. The posting of this article is a disgrace. Mocctur (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Mocctur never hearing of this" is a valid oppose, either. What you consider "really notable" might not be considered so by others, just as you don't consider Mr. Ebert notable. His reviews have been seen and read by tens of millions (many more than the population of Belgium), he coined the concept of "thumbs up" or down for rating films, has several awards and recognitions (a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, unusual for a film critic). 331dot (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral RD, Oppose blurb, oppose pull It's up now, it shouldn't be, but it is. Per WP:POPULAR page views is irrelevant. Claims of US-centrism are absurd. The best thing to do now is to push through 5 better stories and bump this off the bottom. --IP98 (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page views should not be the sole criterion for an ITN posting; but they are an indication of a page that others are likely to want to read, per "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news"(from the ITN page). 331dot (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth (if someone is reading this looking for precedent or whatever) I quite agree with what IP98 says here, though I would have supported RD. Anyways, let's work on some other stories rather than worrying about this. LukeSurltc16:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected militants throw a grenade at a vehicle carrying paramilitary security officers in southern Pakistan, killing three people and wounding three others. (AP via ABC News)[permanent dead link]
Comment: The entire article, while meeting the content requirements, is based on only one source (albeit a reliable one, New York Times). While not trying to say that "The updated article must have X sources!!!", I think that there should be a couple others, if possible. SpencerT♦C05:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I was working on it, hence my "work is ongoing" comment... I probably should have just waited longer to nominate... Thanks for pointing out a couple good sources and adding the infobox.--ThaddeusB (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Only person to have won an Oscar and the Booker Prize. Well known for her collaboration with Merchant Ivory. --JuneGloomTalk21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that. ;) I've had a go at updating and expanding the article. Just in case it comes up, she was still writing before her death and her last story appeared in The New Yorker on 25 March 2013 [11]. - JuneGloomTalk23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good update, long list of awards. Not seeing anything in the article which shows how she is "widely regarded as having a significant impact on her field". Being prolific != important. --IP98 (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Anthony Burgess and Graham Greene won no Bookers between them. Dennis Hopper and Peter O'Toole have an honorary Oscar between them. It is terrible that she has died. But would every Booker be considered just because they won a Booker, Oscar likewise? Sometimes "a very important figure in his or her field" gets no awards at all. I think that is worth considering.
Support. Member of the prolific and highly regarded 3-person Merchant Ivory film-making team. I was sad to see her name show up on my watchlist as recent death; others will want to read about her when the death notice appears on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was going to vote no, but the article is updated and the subject is quite interesting, and certainly notable for her accomplishments. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Merchant Ivory have clearly had a significant and long-lasting effect on their field, which is a highly significant one (cinematic drama), and Jhabvala's exceptional record of awards is a reflection of that. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to be careful when posting an item under ITN/DC #2, that the article establishes how the person was "widely considered very important in his/her field". Many of the supports above rationalize her importance, but it isn't up to "ITN regulars" to decide. Jane Henson was part of the Muppets, but that wasn't enough. Ralph Klein was a loud voice in Canada, but got "Albertan provincial politics is not a big enough field...". Jerry Buss barely went up, even with numerous NBA owners and players calling his contribution to the league important. This woman won two academy awards and wrote some short stories. Where are the reactions from other screen writers? Coppola? The Coens? It's not up to "us" to decide who is "important enough" for ITN. This will go up, it has consensus to post, but it really shouldn't. --IP98 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "It's not up to "us" to decide who is "important enough" for ITN." so who is it up to? I'm not sure we need a reaction from "Coppola" or "The Coens" to establish the fact that an Oscar-winning Booker Prize-winning artist has significant support here for ITN. If you think we need more people to contribute at ITN, that's an entirely different discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coppola and "The Coens" are Oscar-winning screen writers, so their reactions to her death, and their opinions on her impact on the field of screen writing are infinitely more important than yours or mine. I picked those names from a long list at Academy Award for Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), any one would do. Same with fiction (booker or Pulitzer or whatever, some recognized authority in the field of fiction). The point is I don't think anyone here is qualified to determine if an individual is "widely regarded as very important in his/her field", without at least having some quotes from prominent participants in that field indicating that the person is important. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so perhaps we need to change the criteria to state that the individual is "widely regarded as very important in his/her field by his/her peers"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you suggesting is the higher award than an Oscar for a screen play? The Nobel Piece Prize? The criteria now are notability and an update, and we have those and consensus to post. Of corse adding the Coens' or Coppola's comments can't hurt article, but they are not needed for the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To IP98, yes, your answer matches my suggestion, you should seek to have the criteria changed to include "by his/her peers" if you believe the editors here are not qualified to determine the importance of an individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "Coppola or the Coens", or anyone else, has a microphone stuck under their noses and are asked for their thoughts on the death of RPJ or anyone else who has recently died, basic good manners obliges them to eulogise with the result that such comments are not reliable as a measure of importance. Such comments rarely add substantial benefit to articles, as they are not measured and balanced comments. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shrugs The article doesn't establish explicitly how this person is widely regarded as very important in his/her field. A laundry list of awards may allow us to infer importance, but I don't believe we're qualified to do so. We don't agree, honestly I don't care. Regards. --IP98 (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not posted? It is updated and has clear consensus. 00:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, this deserves to be posted. Roger Ebert (whose recent death is posted) made a living writing about the work of people in her profession, and I bet he would have said she deserved a mention here: [12], [13]... (And what happened to the idea that ITN should endeavor for geographic diversity and inclusion of under-represented topics? Here we have an accomplished WOMAN who was at home on three continents -- and whose work spanned all three and the relationships between them, their people, and their cultures...) --Orlady (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[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.
Strong Oppose We can't comment with high probability whether conditions for cold wave would sustain for remaining part of the year.Regards, theTigerKing15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would possibly support individual stories, the cold wave could be mention in the blurb. --Tone15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anything as this is not global as referred to in the article's title. For me living in Macedonia there is no dispersion compared to other years. Some news point that there are cold waves even with snowfalls in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, but it doesn't mean that Europe has been globally affected. As for the case with India, there should be separate article documenting the weather conditions only in this country and given the casualities and damages it seems worth supporting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sticky looking out ones window is an inadequate evaluation of a global event. 2013 global cold wave seems like WP:OR to me, chaining together a string of record cold temperature events in select locations. Honestly, I think maybe that article should be submitted for AFD. --IP98 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there are specific examples of a major effect of this alleged cold wave (like large crop losses, or a large number of casualties/deaths, etc.) we can discuss ITN items for those specific examples. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[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.
Nominator's comments: Quoting the New York Times: "The fate of Kaesong is seen as a crucial test of how far North Korea is willing to take its recent threats against the South. Its continued operation was often seen as a sign that Pyongyang’s verbal militancy was not necessarily matched by its actions.". Note that Kaesong was also closed 3 time in 2009. We haven't posted anything about North Korea's retorics yet, as we thought it was just retorics. But the closure of Keasong and the reopening of the plutonium reactor are significant. Thue (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - final something worth posting in seemingly endless series of "we want war" moves by North Korea. --ThaddeusB (talk)
Support - Now that's more like it. The narrative was that North Korea couldn't be going to war since they were still keeping Kaesong open.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
