• edit
• history
• watch

• Aftermath of the Libyan civil war:
  • A car bomb explodes near a hospital in the Libyan city of Benghazi, killing at least nine people. (BBC)
• War in Afghanistan (2001–2021):
  • Three Georgian soldiers are killed and several wounded in a large-scale insurgent attack on an ISAF base in the Helmand Province. (Civil Georgia)

• A 2,300-year-old Mayan pyramid at Nohmul in Belize is destroyed by a construction company seeking road fill gravel. (Fox News)
• Veteran U.S. broadcaster Barbara Walters announces her 2014 retirement. (ABC News America)

• Kevyn Orr, a state-appointed emergency manager of the finances of the city of Detroit, Michigan, issues a report describing the city as "clearly insolvent on a cash flow basis." (BBC)

• A military aircraft crashes in residential area in Yemen's capital of Sana'a. (Xinhua)
• The search of the wreckage of the 2013 Savar building collapse in Bangladesh ends with 1,127 people found dead. (CTV News)

• Myanmar state television announces that President Thein Sein will make the first official visit to the United States, the first by a leader of that country in nearly fifty years. (ABC News)

• Attorney General Eric Holder, acting for the Obama Administration, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee that he was not party to the U.S. Justice Department's secret seizure of telephone records of the news agency the Associated Press. The Justice Department seized two months worth of telephone records from AP offices and reporters. (Fox News),(CBS News)(AP)
• In Mexico City, Mexico, two men are arrested in connection with the May 9 murder of 28-year-old American Malcolm Shabazz, the grandson and first male descendant of Malcolm X. (NPR)
• Iranian man Azim Aghajani is convicted in Nigeria of attempting to smuggle weapons to The Gambia. He is sentenced to five years imprisonment. (BBC)
• Kermit Gosnell, a U.S. abortion physician, is found guilty in Pennsylvania of three counts of murder of newborn infants, one count of involuntary manslaughter, and various other charges. (The Washington Post)(BBC)
• The U.S. Department of Treasury may probe why Bloomberg News reporters were monitoring how investment bank employees searched their site for financial information, including U.S. Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. (The New York Times),(BBC)

• The Senate in the U.S. state of Minnesota passes a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Governor Mark Dayton says he intends to sign it into law. (ABC News)
• Voters in the Philippines go to the polls for House of Representatives and Senate elections with police on heightened security. (ABS CBN)
• Siddaramaiah of the Indian National Congress party is sworn in as the 22nd Chief Minister of the southern Indian state of Karnataka. (Zee News)
• In Canada's Newfoundland and Labrador Province, Liberal Party's Yvonne Jones won a by-election to the province's Labrador electoral riding, formerly held by Conservative Party's Peter Penashue. The by-election was widely viewed as a crucial test for new Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau. (CBC News)(CTV News)

• In association football, Premier League and FA Cup runners-up Manchester City sack manager Roberto Mancini. (BBC)

Nohmul destruction

• Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)

• Support Was coming here to nominate it - knowing destruction of ancient history for profit. EdwardLane (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A major archaeological site (fx on this top 10 list). Thue (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Terrible and significant act of vandalism, and apparently part of a wider problem. BBC report: . AlexTiefling (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• support. Also archeology is an underrepresented topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - significant loss for the archeological community. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Destruction of cultural and historical heritage of any sort is very significant. This one seems to be a fine material for the main page. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment article needs a little bit of work, but I'll try to fix that shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Whole thing could be better referenced, I've tried to structure it in a more appropriate fashion and fixed the existing references. I've referenced as much as I can in a quick hit, perhaps others who are more commensurate with the subject matter could help? Otherwise this is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Update is thin and needs more fleshing out, but I agree it is just good enough to go up now. Jusdafax 18:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Certainly significant enough and, as has been said, an underrepresented topic. Neljack (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

RD Joyce Brothers

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.

• Nominated by IP98 (talk · give credit)

• Support for RD She certainly had her impact, and her death is being widely reported on. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think so. There is no single medium reporting about her death in my country and in the neighbouring countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Household name in the US, pioneer of the quack-pop-psy trend. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the above comments. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Not Updated Under no circumstances does two sentences saying the exact same thing, she's dead, count as an update. If marking this updated was a simple fomat error someone should be more careful. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My mistake, sorry. Thanks for adjusting. --IP98 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support for RD if some information on her legacy\the impact of her death (such as mentioned tribute) is added or the article is significantly expanded in general. I am surprised by how short the article is at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I really don't see how she qualifies as a very important figure in her field, unless you define her field rather narrowly to be "advice column writing" or "television psychology" - which seems overly narrow. Considering broader fields, I have not seen any evidence that she was "widely regarded as a very important figure" in psychology, television, print media or the media generally. So I don't see that, using any suitable general field, that she qualifies. Neljack (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pop psychology covers both columnist and talking head, and she created the field--you will not be able to name someone like her that preceded her, but there are plenty who have followed. She was also the only woman to win the $64,000 question, was more famous than the beatles when she interviewed them in 1964, had three dozen movie credits and over 130 cameos.... μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Where was she more famous than the Beatles? In the UK? In Australia? No way. Not explicitly opposing this (I've never heard of her, so I have no thoughts on her importance in the USA), but it's bothered me a bit that it's a purely US topic, and too many editors are writing as if it's a global one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it would be unfair to describe what she did as "pop psychology". She was a qualified psychologist (with a doctorate, indeed); what she was doing was real psychology, just using the media, rather than the superficial and often unsound stuff that pop psychology connotes. Neljack (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; I agree with Neljack and HiLo48 here. If the article were very high quality, I might reconsider, but right now I don't see sufficient reason to put her up on RD. NW (Talk) 02:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Hilo, the sources say she was the first to interview the Beatles in the US, where she was indeed more well known, and yes, Neljack, The Mail describes her as a popular psychologist in its headline. Can we go by sources rather than personal impressions? μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. So she was more famous than the Beatles IN THE USA. I've wondered from the start of this discussion what the chances would be of getting the death at a ripe old age of an Australian columnist and TV personality. Don't worry. I know the answer. I tried with someone more important that that, and it was rejected for "not globally important enough". Yes, we do have a systemic bias, and a lot of those who are part of it never ever even think about it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is a bias, then please work to counteract it by nominating stories from Australia and convincing us of notability. Furthermore, the simple fact is that there are 300 million Americans and 23 million Australians; there are bound to be more US stories simply due to that. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article's now updated, although the lead could use expansion. Suggestions as to what would make this a very high quality article would be appreciated on its talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Joyce Brothers was one of those people whom it is hard to capture her cultural impact by her job title. For 3 decades (most of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s) she was a ubiquitous media personality. --Jayron32 04:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

...in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Please do not...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --Jayron32 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Missed the point. Do read what I post more carefully. What if I wrote, about an Australian personality unknown in the USA, "a ubiquitous media personality", without saying where? It would be silly. Similarly for "more famous than the Beatles", a statement made without qualification, but nonsense outside the USA. You will note that only a small part of my concern was about the lack of chances of an Australian equivalent. The rest was examples of the reason for that. Too many US editors behave as if they ARE the whole world. I aim for quality discussion here. A lot of this thread isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look in the mirror to find the primary reason why it isn't. --Jayron32 06:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please find (possible) fault with my words, rather than with me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Question where is the evidence that she is considered top in her field? What international (or even national) awards did she win? We rejected an unexpected death of a young Olympic gold medallist, but this nomination seems to be for a journalist, noted in the US only, who died "of old age". In other news, the lead is a single sentence (not really adequate) and there are many unreferenced claims in the article, these should be addressed before we consider posting this to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Sorry, but if the main reason for her notability is that she was an advise columnist and the first person to interview The Beatles in the US, then there is no way she should be considered for inclusion even only in RD. Please provide what was her impact as a columnist, what are the things that were changed as result of her work, and what is the reception of her overall activities. I agree that she was an ubiquitous media personality for three decades, but the last of these was some 25 years ago. There are plenty of other columnists and journalists writing and interviewing people about more important topics, such like politics, globalisation, economy, financial markets etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

She invented her field. No one did what she did before her. We generally don't post retirements(the recent Ferguson nom nonwithstanding), so naturally it will sometimes be a long period of time from the end of a working career to death. If that disqualified people from RD, it should be renamed to "Tragic RD". 331dot (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

She invented her field, eh? Are you sure there wasn't someone in Europe (they were pretty into psychology), or somewhere else, who did it first? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll put it another way; she thought she did(according to her article). If you know of a European psychologist who had a TV show before August of 1958, I'll stand corrected. She clearly was one of the first, if not the first, and she inspired others to do the same thing (Phil McGraw). 331dot (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think she declared herself the inventor of that field. Not sure that really counts. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we call that a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and pay it little heed. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How else would you suggest we determine if she was the first or not? She was clearly one of the first. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying "one of the first" is not same as "invented her field". To be honest, there are many people that are "one of the first" in many fields with the same importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Brothers is the one by named by the sources as a pioneer and having inspired the field. She doesn't need to compete against some other imaginary candidate who's not being named as her predecessor. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the idea is that the fallacious claim of "inventing" her field is problematic. No-one said she had to "compete" with "imaginary" people, part of the gravitas of this nomination was that this person claimed to be the first ever "television psychologist", which has no substantiation in fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How exactly can that be factually proven? Show me a psychologist with a TV show before August of 1958. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to disprove an unreferenced claim, it's up to you (or whoever) to prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The claim is not unreferenced; Medeis posted many sources calling her the first below, and that's if you don't believe her self-made claim of being so. The onus is on you if you are asserting that such a claim is false. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, which of the various sources used in the article said she "invented her field" please? Do elucidate. Feel free to ensure the article is up to scratch and includes such information and resolves all the "citation needed" issues which have been glossed over by all the supporters, and I'll support, without hesitation. (By the way, "self-made claim"s are not WP:RS!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The very first line of the AP article reads "Joyce Brothers, the pop psychologist who pioneered the television advice show in the 1950s and enjoyed a long and prolific career as a syndicated columnist, author, and television and film personality, has died." Pioneered is a synonym for invented and AP is certainly reliable. No comment on the s at this time since I haven't had a chance to check them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting case since she proclaimed herself to be the mother of television psychology and ever since it's been propagated and Chinese-whispered and now it's reliably sourced by AP. Many US sources are glowing in their reviews of her impact, and I do find it interesting that the article is entirely hagiographical with not an ounce of criticism, almost worth tagging since I'm certain TV psychologists would have faced criticism at some point in there career, even the self-proclaimed pioneers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• oppose Previously there has enforced very high standards for which deaths can be brought here, and she certainly does not meet them, nor is there anything about her that justifies inclusion as an underrepresented topic. A run-of-the-mill American media personality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Readyarticle is updated and consensus is to post. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Not ready. I cannot figure out how this one is ready when even the people supporting it are not familiar with the arguments of her importance. First, it was said that she "invented the field" with no reliable source to confirm it. Next, some of the supporters settled only for being "one of the first". One of the supports uses the argument that her death is reported widely on, which is not correct and unsupported with sources as well, while another one explains her significance in 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, with completely nothing in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. I agree that it's not necessary for the person to be significant at the time of the death, but the work that brought her some significance is simply not comparable to many other people who were not posted when they died only because there was no significance at the time of the death. Clearly, there is a vote count to say this is ready, which still appears to be not sufficient for consensus of any sort with 5 supports, 4 opposes and many unanswered questions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's irrelevant to your point, but its actually 6-4 (the nomination counts as a support). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  If it's irrelevant, why bring it up? And no, it's not 6-4. And funny how all those who oppose this have been berated, while the support votes have been taken as read, e.g. "support" as a household name in the US. Fail. This is English Misplaced Pages, not US Misplaced Pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  I invite you to suggest non-US deceased persons for posting, if you feel there are too many US persons posted. A good number of users here are from the US. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Tried that. Doesn't work. Mainly because a good number of users here are from the US. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Nonsense. The vast majority of non-US proposals since the start of RD have either been posted or failed because of article/update quality. Only a few failed due to opposition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Well, HiLo, you have zero chance of getting your suggestions posted if you don't make them in the first place. If you make suggestions it's up to you to convince others of their notability, perhaps by suggesting comparisons to people who have been posted. A deceased Indian man above seems to be getting some support. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  No "berating" here. I just wanted Kril to be aware that the nomination counts as a supporter for future reference. I actually agree completely with his assessment of the item's status. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting you were the "berater"(!). However, you have already supported this for RD, despite the fact you say the item isn't ready to be posted (and you counted your own vote as a current support despite the lame article condition).... I'm confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  "Support" and "not ready" are not mutually exclusive opinions in my book. My support is based on perceived merit, but is qualified with "if..." For clarity, I would not post the article in its current condition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, just checking because if some errant admin counted votes, currently your vote would be support despite the fact you mean oppose at this point in time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  No, the article is naff (it has plenty of citation needed all over it) and there is no consensus to post, that'll be up to an admin to decide, not someone who has already supported the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose since no answers forthcoming to my above questions. I worked on the article but found it to be in a dismal state. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article doesn't really emphasise what is notable about her. Media psychology? It's a bit of a fringe subject. Her acting and broadcasting career? Not particularly notable. Her column? Maybe, but again, the article doesn't go into much detail. I can't find notable reaction outside of the US media at all. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 18:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If pioneering a field isn't notable, what is? 331dot (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can pioneer a field. That doesn't make you or the field notable somehow. Television psychology is a fringe field that only sees some popularity in Canada + US, and even then it has become so over-the-top... is it really worth noting? _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pioneering a field is being highly influential in it, ipso facto. The claim anyone can pioneer a field is simply.... μηδείς (talk)

Perhaps you should reread my comment, which clearly addressed the notability of the field. I could pioneer the field of "tulip genetic modification" tomorrow, or perhaps even "Dong Son naturopathic healing", but none of them somehow become (or make me become) inherently notable. As for your latter comment: "pioneer /pʌɪəˈnɪə/: develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity)" _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 21:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a massively radical idea, why don't you actually edit the article to prove these claims rather than just chat about it like this is some kind of Facebook/Twitter substitute? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The opposes above all still rest on either "I have not heard of her", "she's not important in the UK", "she's not covered internationally", or "The article is being marked with tags as quickly as they are being removed." The first two "reasons" are forbidden by the guidelines and policy, the third is absolutely false (see below), and the fourth is just irrelevant. As for her death not being covered internationally, see the hindustan times, the mail "advice show pioneer Joyce Brothers", international business times, reuters UK, Voz de America, japan times, global news canada, not to mention the Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the Cornell University student paper. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not at all, they rest on the idea that she's not "top of her field", she hasn't won any awards, she's a "self-declared" expert. Whatever, there is little evidence her passing is notable, it's slipped off every major news outlet (including most of those noted above) in the past 24 hours. And it's bad form for Medies to suggest this is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • • • You can cut the return to personal comments about "bad form" with your tagging and deleting material from the article, while I suggested it was ready when there was 60 to 40% support and the article was well updated. It is again, with notable and reliable sources from the Mail to the WSJ, NYT, Washington and New York posts all calling her a pioneer and running full page obits on her. Stick to the sources, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I can see why you're reluctant to edit actual articles; the number of sources you've misused, all now tagged (or retagged after you mistakenly untagged them), is astonishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There likely wouldn't be a field if not for her, whether she was actually first or not; she paved the way and set the format for those that followed. Even if the narrower field of TV/media psychology isn't broad enough for your taste, she was clearly notable in psychology in general by pioneering a new medium to deliver it to the public. There is no requirement that a death be prominent news for a lengthy period of time to be listed. It was national (and even international) news. This is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • "Joyce Brothers" "Pioneer": CNN, Herald Tribune, Daily Mail, New York Post, NPR, LA Times, ABC News, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Salon, "First": NBC News, Variety, New York Times, NY Daily News, Time Magazine ... I call on an admin to post on the quality of supports and sources, and lack of coherent rationale for opposition. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - To be brief, I despised the woman and her whole approach, which I would call "reductionist," but I am aware that her impact was, nevertheless, significant. As the LA Times headline reads on her front page obituary today, "TV analyst put psychology into the mainstream" and that means she is worthy of a ITN RD mention. I too see the opposers as not citing significant reasoning in their statements, and call for posting by an admin who sees through the "I don't like it" pontificating, which is unconvincing, to say the least. Jusdafax 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article now meets minimum standards for update and overall quality, so it has my full support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Look, sure she's a very important figure in television psychology, but is that really a sufficiently broadly defined field? It seems to me to be a genre of television, and are we really going to say that anyone who is very important in their genre of TV can get posted? She doesn't seem to qualify as a very important figure in television, print media or psychology, which would be sufficiently general fields. Neljack (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Marking ready again. Majority in favor of posting, and opposes either based on false premises (not covered, no primary sources call her pioneer) or dpereceated rationales: not big in various countries unknown to various editors. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, a championship bid in misleading and misrepresentation there. We don't count votes. We look at quality and content. Nobody said "not big in various countries unknown to various editors". Several said something to the effect of "pretty much unknown outside the USA". In fact, I said that, and also said it might not matter if the supporters stopped making claims written in a global tone, and just concentrated on her achievements in the US being important enough. They didn't. They kept writing claims without qualification. Gee, if I wrote a nomination about an Australian media personality, but wrote in an unqualified way, as if all that person's achievement's were globally significant, I'd be laughed out of the place. I was swinging on this, but the over-the-top hype from the supporters, and that last post, have been pushing me away. And how about "There likely wouldn't be a field if not for her"? What nonsense. There's 300,000,000 people in the USA (and 7 billion in the world). Someone else would have done whatever she did. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what a "dpereceated" rationale is, but I don't see it here. There's no clear case for her being "the top in her field", she won no awards, she was a self-proclaimed "pioneer", we could all do that. And an article which just heaps praise on her? Where's the balance? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has an orange maintenance tag that needs to be resolved. Spencer 12:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ready almost every sentence has at least one, if not multiple refs, and all tags were removed as of this edit. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Some good work by Medeis, but the article still has inline tags and is purely hagiographical (i.e. that's not one single sentence that mentions any of the criticism she received throughout her career), so this article is incomplete and really not ready for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There's an incredible amount of bad faith here. The article was tagged by Rambling Man for almost every single sentence, often multiple times, for information readily available in almost every major source given. Additions of sources have been reverted with hostile edit summaries "buggered" "buggered" "mess" "mess" "mess" "mess" "tag" "tag" "tag" "tag" "be careful" "be careful" "you wrecked the article, please be more careful and add citations with a suitable template (and without all the text and SHOUTING" (I left an extra space) that make absolutely no sense outside a very well documented personal animosity of Rambling Man towards myself. Now we are to assume the good faith of an "unbalanced" tag for the article by an editor who has made 65 deletions or critical edits to an article whose nomination he opposes here? No evidence of unbalanced edits has been given, the editor who has placed the tag is free to add criticism--the fact that no one else has is not a reason to tag the article or delay the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Medeis has supported this, and relentlessly attempted to make it "ready", I think she should know by now that she should allow someone else to assess the quality of the article and determine whether it's ready for main page inclusion. As she has decided to copy and paste this comment to the talk page (and I've responded there), I won't bother repeating myself, but swiftly, this article was wrecked by numerous poor edits by Medeis which I fixed. It also lacks any kind of criticism section or even a sniff of anything beyond pure love and hagiography (as I've mentioned numerous times above, which no-one seemed to be interested in dealing with). I've done a lot of work on this poor article, I've asked for the same quality of referencing as I'd expect from something which features on the main page, and a lot of subversive illegitimate "sourcing" has gone on just to get this page onto ITN. It's sort of embarrassing to have to deal with incorrect and inadequate referencing, and worse to have to explain why we shouldn't be presenting sub-standard articles on the main page of Misplaced Pages. Finally I don't think Medeis understands what the {{balance}} template is for. Perhaps she can read up about it. It means this article isn't balanced. Not that "unbalanced edits have been given". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ready again, this article is ready to post. Claims that it has been "wrecked" are incoherent--although if one looks at the edit history one can see that as soon as I started addressing Rambling Mans' pointy tags today he started edict conflicting me and adding yet another several dozen tags to the article, while deleting my references. Any inspection shows that Rambling Man has done everything he can to keep the article tagged (sources, not a big enough lead, now "balance"); I call, yet again, on an impartial admin to look at this article and post it. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No incoherence at all. You wrecked the article numerous times (I guess I now see why you're reluctant to edit in the mainspace), you fouled most of it up, you've now got a half decent article (courtesy of my corrections) but one without any kind of neutral perspective. I fixed your many erroneous edits. How about letting someone else assess the article? You and I are clearly too involved, so we should stop the "ready/not ready" situation. As an aside, if you like, I'll give you some tutorials on how to edit/reference an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting

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.

• Nominated by Gfosankar (talk · give credit)

• oppose was gonna create/work on this but its just a blip on the news with no lasting effort. Now its called just street violence even. Really ITN encourages the creation of frivolous articles as "encyclopaedic"Lihaas (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is proposed for deletion. And this discussion shows concerns that already exist among Administrators for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If there had been 19 deaths sure, but a shooting where nobody is killed comes nowhere near to requisite threshold of importance. Neljack (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - not notable. (Article probably, ITN no)--82.8.226.105 (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support unlike a traffic accident, a shooting is a deliberate act of malicious violence. That the attackers were incompetent doesn't change the gravity or the seriousness of the event. Three people in critical condition. These guys were aiming to kill. --IP98 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons given above. There are many stories in which the guys aim to kill other people, but we don't have enough room on the main page to post all of them. The story is even bellow many of them, as there are no people killed at all. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Only of local significance. I have nominated the article at AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose how many non-lethal shootings are there in the USA every year? According to this, 8,583 people were killed by firearms in the USA in 2011. That's about 23 people killed by firearms in the US every day. This "shooting" isn't even a glitch, it's business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May 12