Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2013

---

[Posted] Violent protests in Bangladesh

Nominator's comments: Largest flare up of violence in Bangladesh in some time. Protest is likely to continue for days and have lasting repercussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple Issues I could support this, but it has multiple major issues. The 22 deaths mentioned in the lead are not referenced in any updated article--the real headline here is Delwar Hossain Sayeedi sentenced to death. That article is very poorly written, often not in grammatical English. I'd attempt to improve the style, but given the rapid competing edits of partisans, I am unsure it would be unwasted effort. The article has a neutrality tag. That tag should probably be removed since there is no discussion or explanation of it at talk. Without the 22 deaths being referenced here or in another article I am loathe to invest the time. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The focus should be on 2013 Shahbag protests rather than on the individual because the aims of the movement is far broader than merely protesting against the war crimes, the movement aims at reversing the increasing religious radicalisation of politics. The blurb also skews the news in favor of the convict, because the original protests started demanding death penalty for war criminals. Tehelka has dealt with the issue in detail [1]. Furthermore the 2013 Shahbag protests is unique in recent South Asian political history. I would like to propose an alternative blurb: Thousands protest in Bangladesh demanding death penalty for war criminals.LegalEagle (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the proposed altblurb is that the protests started Feb 5 and aren't "in the news" per se. The sentencing of Sayeedi and the resulting violence is what is in the news today. I have no problem with using 2013 Shahbag protests as the bolded target (avoiding the mess of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi would be good) and/or using a different blurb, but whatever is used the blurb must reflect current developments to the story . --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with you on the proposed alt blurb and support it. However I do disagree that the protests are not in the news, unfortunately the mainstream media attention has been patchy (though a google news search bound by dates would give close to 600 news item from Feb 5). The protests have not captured the imagination of western media like Tahrir square did, but an independent objective evaluation/comparison (in terms of aims, number of protests, number of days etc.) would show that the 2013 Shahbag Protests can become a pivotal point in the history of Bangladesh and South Asia. -- LegalEagle (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would support the 2013 Shahbag protests if it had the minimum update for the current violence and met notability. I would also support Delwar Hossain Sayeedi upon execution if he had a leadership role in the military at that time. Sort of a prison camp guard vs prison camp commander debate. Yes, I realize there were no camps, but I'm just trying to get the point across. --IP98 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have updated the death toll and proposed an altblurb that highlights 2013 Shahbag protests while maintaining the reason for the latest news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending update alt blurb. --IP98 (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb LegalEagle (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the altblurb over the first one. But both articles still need major work. I went to the Shahbag article to see if it was ready, and found the lead an incomprehensible jumble. I tagged it and have suggested how to improve it on the talk page. If someone with knowledge of the general issues can give the a better division into sections I will be happy to address other issues like grammar, etc. As it is now I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to start. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

updated the lead section of the protest article.LegalEagle (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to 2013 Bangladesh protests to reflect their wider scope. This still needs lots of work, but it should go up. Question do the non-bold links in a nomination have to meet the same standards as the main link? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: no. Modest Genius ^talk 22:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks be to God, because the Delwar article needs a man-week of work. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, I have gone through the article up to the lead sentence of the "International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) of 2010" section. The ITN nominator might like to show a little good faith support towards updating/cleaning/prepping his nomination at this point. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added the recent events to the 2013 Bangladesh protests article. The relevant section is 2013 Bangladesh protests#Sentencing of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi and counter protests. I believe the altblurb is now ready for posting (death toll updated to 44).--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Faith Thaddeus seems to have made various good faith improvements to the article. But there are still various uncited references, and the entire article has not yet been reviewed. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A perfect article is not the requirement for ITN posting. The article meets the requirements as is, and the update itself is well cited. Of course you are allowed/encouraged to make whatever improvements you see fit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: A very strong Yes! Go for it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready I strongly support getting this posted, and I and others have put a lot of work into it. But large portions of the article, especially from the ITC 2010 section down, are not in grammatical or even readable English. For example, "We take the oath that we will remain vocal both on the streets and online until politics of war criminal Jamaat-Shibir is not banned and nationality of their members not cancelled." This really needs to be addressed before posting. (One possibility is hiding sections until they are fixed.) I want this posted, but not as is. (Sorry about the accidental blanking on my last attempt at this edit.) μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have hidden and deleted a lot of material, but I still haven't gotten up to the "Development of protests" section. Some help improving, deleting or hiding below that point would be good. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ready: Between μηδείς and my own efforts, a huge amount of unsourced and random crap has been removed from the article & everything has been copyedited. The article should now be good enough to post by any reasonable standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ready --agreed, there are some citation needed tags but they are new and should be allowed to stand a bit. This is not perfect but it is quite ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post Please there is support for this without opposition and a lot of work was put into bringing the article up to snuff. Can we either have this posted or an explanation why not? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The blurb on the main page reads: In Bangladesh, widespread protests result in more than 50 deaths after Islamist politician Delwar Hossain Sayeedi is convicted of war crimes and sentenced to death. The article which it links to is the Shahbag Protests. In my opinion the blurb is misleading. The Shahbag protests are completely peaceful, it is the counter protests which are violent and have caused the deaths. I think the blurb needs a rework so that it reflects the news properly. LegalEagle (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have created an article 2013 Bangladesh protests which tries to bring the different protest and counter protest movements under one article. I would request for this article on 2013 Bangladesh protests instead of 2013 Shahbag protests to be linked via ITN blurb. LegalEagle (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Catholic Church enters sede vacante period

---

[Posted] Janez Janša

Nominator's comments: The government is down. This indicates there will be another head of state. We posted the similar situation in 2011 when Pahor's government got a vote of non-confidence. --Tone 08:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A fall of a government due to a determination of corruption is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OpposeNeutral The word "ousted" is loaded. The coalition fell apart his party lost a vote of non-confidence. This is actually pretty common in coalition governments. I don't know enough about the Slovenian system of government to know why this doesn't automatically trigger an election. --IP98 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BBC used that word, something better can probably be formulated. It should be stressed that the PM is the politician with most power in the country so this is a change of head of state (what we always post). There are two options now, either the formateur will form a new government or there will be an election, it's too early to say that at the moment. --Tone 12:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search "ousted" here on WP and you get articles on coups and overthrows. This was a pretty routine political procedure. I would prefer something like "leaves office after a vote of non-confidence". We usually post elections, I don't know that we always post the change of a head of state. I'm not blind to the significance here, but it seems more like routine political horse-trading. Opposition: "You're corrupt. Step down!". PM: "Am not. Will not." Opposition: "Fine then, we quit. No confidence!". It's not like he was convicted, it's all allegations of corruption. --IP98 (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral. The CPC is an official body. Even w/o a court, it's about as damning as it gets. Still think it's a pretty weak scandal, and that "ousted" needs to be dropped from the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we do not necessarily have to state the reason. --Tone 13:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, as a dramatic fall of a government. But the blurb could do with some work - maybe rephrase it as 'loses a vote of no confidence' to avoid the accusations? There should also be more than a one sentence update. Modest Genius ^talk 23:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modified the blurb and expanded with some reactions. Marking ready (I can't post as I am the nominator). There's also a photo available. --Tone 07:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think such instances are notable and ITN-worthy (having nom'd three last week) but it seems others were in favour of waiting for the election (or perhaps a new PM)Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Stéphane Hessel (RD)

Nominator's comments: National hero; named "ambassador for life" for his diplomatic work; and, most notably, known for his internationally influential writings that are said to have sparked multiple protest movements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article seems in good shape, and explains notability well. Needs to be updated with some reaction to his death. LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated I never heard of him before but his bio provides good detail on why he's notable enough to post. We just need that update. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when updated I have also never heard of him, but the article is decent and he is certainly notable enough. --Jayron32 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article as written is hagiographic and hardly balanced, the opinion from the left seems to be he's one of ours. The list of organizations he belonged to reads like a parody. He seems to have been semi-notable as a member of the resistance. But I don't see any verifiable accomplishments or respect from those not deeply committed to his political agenda. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mainly as a result of reading the above votes. If his notabilty for posting is clear but a lot of people haven't heard him, that makes him ideal for RD, IMO. If the best argument against posting him is (transparently) "I'm not so keen on his style of politics", then I think that seals it. Formerip (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have said no such thing and you know it, I have supported the nominations of plenty of people/things I am personally critical of. The point is, do we have two or three sources that are not his own partisans that speak to his actual accomplishments? That shouldn't be that difficult for someone so prominent. As for his being unheard of a factor in favor of posting, well, you so crazeh. μηδείς (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Influential personnality during the last few years of his life. I don't like his political views, especially regarding Gaza, but the fact is, that his death is ITN/RD worthy. Hektor (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A death section has been added and brought up to the minimum ITN update standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready The death section has a whole of one source for mutiple claims, and lacks a source for the twitter claim--I'll assume the date of death is correct although unsourced in this section. Two more sources, at least one for the twitter claim, will make this ready. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement is inaccurate in multiple regards. First, there is no requirement for multiple sources in an update. Second, nothing is unsourced. There is no need to put a [1] after every line if they all use the same source - only direct quote "require" a cite. (Technically, there are no requirements but best practice is to always cite quotes.) In fact, I've been gripped at for putting the same incline on consecutive sentences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the point that there is only one source for his death, or that the nomination is not worth the effort? Look at the death sections for Van Cliburn and C. Everett Koop when they were posted. Five full sentences with multiple sources and updates in the body as well. As it stands the sources all credited here to the BBC could be condensed into two sentences instead of five, and the nomination would not meet the criteria. Fixing that should be simple according to WP:RS, and you'd have my support even though I am skeptical on the grounds I have already noted. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that using two (or twenty) sources instead of one for the same information does not make the update better. Koop's death section consists of 6 sentences totaling 919 characters (and actually had less at time of posting). Hessel's consists of 8 sentences totaling 727 characters. The difference between the two updates is not substantial. (And no, it Heselle's update could not be condensed to two sentences any more than Koop's could.)

All that said, I will add a second source. Your 'is there only one source or something?' question was ridiculous and you know it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Edit warring to enforce your preferred citation style is very inappropriate. I would expect better from you.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready Looks like someone actually did the work instead of arguing that the work had been done. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T♦C 05:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] Van Cliburn (RD)

Nominator's comments: This is breaking news, international sources will be available shortly. Fox says "Van Cliburn, the internationally celebrated pianist whose triumph at a 1958 Moscow competition helped thaw the Cold War and launched a spectacular career that made him the rare classical musician to enjoy rock star status, has died. He was 78."[3] μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is in good shape and explains why Cliburn is notable very well. Spencer^T♦C 18:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Spencer. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated This is now quite well updated, see the death and legacy section in addition to other added material and citations diff. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Highly decorated, appears to be a major figure in his field – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems to fulfill both second and third criteria. A highly decorated pianist with major international impact. Article is sufficiently updated for RD mention. --hydrox (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --Jayron32 21:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Khabarov has just been jailed

Article needs updatingNominator's comments: Events, which are happening right now with a Russian ROTC chief, whose coup d'état charges do not hold water, and the trial itself looks more like a political farce, as it was noted by the majority of political observers in Russia. --93.75.44.49 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This might potentially be notable, but the point of view needs to be watched carefully so we aren't trying to right a wrong. I also don't see any coverage of this outside of Russia yet, though that's not the only requirement. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. RT and RIAN are state-owned media, so there're no reasons for them to try to "right a wrong." Interfax and RAPSI are surely non-government networks, so they should be watched carefully. --93.75.44.49 (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't saying they were righting a wrong, I was saying we would be. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That blurb is very POV, I've suggested an alternative. Given the context of the nomination, and reading the Leonid_Khabarov#Backlash section, this needs serious attention from neutral editors before it can be considered for front page posting. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, your blurb looks purely neutral. --93.75.44.49 (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If he has been convicted, it is exceedingly POV to describe it as an alleged role. He has baan convicted of conspiracy to murder and to “create panic among the population.”

• • • While I wouldn't go as far as the nominator, I'd be cautious about considering the verdicts of Russian courts in cases such as these as reliable sources of the actual facts. Its democracy index recently dropped from "hybrid" to "authoritarian", and its pretty apparent the courts are used as weapons for the powerful to attack each other. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And saying that he was convicted of a charge makes no implication as to the accuracy or not of that conviction, while alleged can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Kevin McE (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I think it would be best to find a wording that extended this ambiguity to whether such a plot ever existed. It's worth noting that the protests regarding this case is what is making it newsworthy. LukeSurl ^{t c}

• Oppose for now. The Khabarov article needs to be cleaned up. I appreciate that not all editors are native English users, but that article really needs a sentence-by-sentence rewrite. The facts and sources all look good, but I don't think the prose is in a shape to be featured on the frontpage.80.220.123.162 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we do run this, I feel the picture and/or the blurb should mention his former Colonel status for those unfamiliar. Running it with no picture would be better than the one currently used; although, I prefer File:Colonel Khabarov addressing the farewell speech.jpg. In regards to the article, I oppose pending a rewrite. Section headers like "“Massoud? Treat him like my best friend”" don't work. Did we publish the arrest? Ryan Vesey 19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose purely on article quality grounds. This seems worthwhile to post based on notability, but the article is a complete mess as noted above. Too many problems with tone and referencing to list them all here. --Jayron32 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to quality. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending greatly increased quality. I thought I understood what was going on when I read about his arest a ways back. After reading this article I have no idea what's going on from any side's viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update needed various simple factual claims in the lead remain unsourced. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Flexible battery

Nominator's comments: Seems like a major accomplishment with significant practical application - the inventors site internal medical devices; wearable and very portable computers come to mind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is a continuous stream of technological innovation. It's a very high degree of WP:SPECULATION to say anything about the impact of this technology at this stage, when there seems not be even a proof of concept product, just an announcement from an academic research group. Time to market could be anything from months to years to decades to eternity. --hydrox (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for much the same reason as Hydrox. Might be a good entry for Did You Know. 331dot (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Hydrox. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Egypt hot air balloon crash

Nominator's comments: This is the deadliest hot air ballooning incident in aviation history. We posted a similar story a year ago. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As Bongwarrior says, "deadliest hot air ballooning incident in aviation history" (19 deaths, previously 13 in 1989 Alice Springs hot air balloon crash) - 220 of ^Borg 09:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. This is a rare type of disaster and the death toll is simply not comparable to the bunch of plane and car crashes that we usually post. Moreover, saying it's the deadliest ever induces excessive importance to the nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per above, significant and one of the deadliest hot balloon crashes.Egeymi (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Futile oppose unless someone can point out any notability other than body count. --IP98 (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's simple. Can you point out to any other hot balloon crash that recently happened, apart from the numerous car and plane crashes that occur every day? You should take a broader look through the media that the news exhibits decent coverage and the fact it's the largest in history makes it surely notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not so simple. Can you point out what impact this will have on the economy, politics, history or future of Egpyt, aviation, or tourism? Pure shock body count. --IP98 (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you tell me what impact will have the fact that Jimmie Johnson won the Daytiona 500 and Danica Patrick became the first woman to achieve a top-10 finish?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability in those cases doesn't come from body count. --IP98 (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor it's the case here. Please check the whole discussion to see what are the other arguments that support this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  IP98, I don't see a problem here. There is a mass-casulty event in the news, with widespread coverage (yes, partly due to the nationalities of the deceased). We have a developing article, which should hopefully soon be ready for the main page. This disaster will be part of the encylopedia in perpetuity, I can't see what we'd gain by not posting it in the In the News section when it is in the news. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, according to this BBC report, the last time an accident of this nature occurred (resulting in 16 injuries, no deaths), "Balloons were grounded for six months after that crash while safety measures were tightened and pilots were re-trained by Egypt's Civil Aviation Authority." so yes, there was a lasting impact. This crash is considerably worse, so I suspect the fallout will be accordingly serious. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that's actually pretty helpful. I knew my oppose was futile, but I wanted to see some other reasoning than corpse count. --IP98 (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is a rare and record-setting event. In this case, the actual body count is not as notable as the reason for it. It likely will also affect tourism in Egypt, on top of how the political turmoil there has already. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per my comments above. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I didn't even think you could fit 20 people into a hot air balloon. It's not every day you hear about hot air balloon crashes of any sort, except some idiot pereodically getting his/hers caught on a telephone pole or deciding to fly it in 20mph+ wind gusts and going on the ride of his life. -- Anc516^(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above; note, however, the article is not yet ready for posting. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is it really true that this is the deadliest balloon crash in history? What about blimps? The fact that it was in Egypt and involved international tourists is consistent with INT requirements. Abductive (reasoning) 16:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blimps are not balloons; blimps generally have powered and controllable movement, and are also not dependent on hot air; balloons have no control over their movement other than altitude. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite, a hot air balloon is very different from an airship. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, the humanity! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support - Sadly, this event had a significant record death toll. That by itself is a claim of notability. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Notable accident. Corrected: 19 fatalities, not 18, see sources. NickSt (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Park Geun-hye

Nominator's comments: Massive news in Korea, and amongst Korean communities abroad. Park Geun-hye is the first woman president of Korea. She is also the daughter of a former ruler, which I don't think happens often in that region. (Father -> son succession, yes, but not father -> daughter with some other rulers in between.) --70.179.161.230 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question? Did we post the election? If not, I would support this one, if we did, I would be neutral, leaning weak support. This seems like an historic event if it hasn't been posted already, and the article is in pretty good shape, which is always a plus for putting something on the main page. Also, the blurb should not pipe-link "Korea" as though the entire Peninsula were one country and she were the actual leader of it. It should read and link to President of South Korea. --Jayron32 06:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We ran the election in December: this is merely enacting the result of that. Kevin McE (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Strong Oppose we posted the election. (see here). LGA _talk^edits 07:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is in the news, though I agree that posting the election was sufficent. --IP98 (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We generally don't post inaugurations, just the election. I have read that the inauguration is a formality and she automatically took office at midnight. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As stated by the others, we posted the election and generally do not post inaugurations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Keith O'Brien

Nominator's comments: This has been big news here in the UK. Resonates with other stories regarding the church. Current update may or may not be sufficient. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose we wouldn't post this if he were arrested, we shouldn't post it without an arrest or criminal charge either. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think we would have posted this if he had been arrested. It's unprecedented for the Catholic church, given that he is a cardinal. Formerip (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on whether the story should be posted, but it surely is not unprecedented in the Church's 2000 year history for a Cardinal to resign. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it they always resign by convention, but it seems to be unprecedented for one to resign for alleged misconduct. That's what it says in the New York Times, anyway. Formerip (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He was already scheduled to retire in less than three weeks. This is primarily about avoiding press distraction during the conlave. Kevin McE (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Kevin McE looks like it is all to do with the conclave, would be open to consider a sticky for Papal conclave, 2013 between the 28th and the appearance of the white smoke (at which time it would be replaced by a full blurb on the new Pope anyway). LGA _talk^edits 00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Agree with the reasons given above. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to a priest guesting on Newsnight last night, the cardinal was actually dismissed by the pope, he made it sound like this was a very rare event. Would have to find more sources for that though. Fgf10 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN is reporting that O'Brien was not forced to step down or even asked; it was his own choice. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it isn't. It reports that he had intended to resign on his 75th birthday (as is customary) "But Benedict decided to make the resignation effective immediately". Formerip (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that doesn't mean Benedict asked him to resign in the first place("Murphy-O'Connor said that it was O'Brien's decision to step down and that he had not been forced or asked to do so."; he only changed the date it goes into effect. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every bishop is obliged to tender his resignation in time for it to be considered before his 75th birthday. The Pope will communicate that this is accepted (with very rare exceptions if he thinks the guy is irreplaceable) reasonably quickly (by Roman standards), but it does not become effective until that birthday. It had been routinely agreed that he would step down on 17 March, so it would have been a very contrary move to refuse to bring that forward by less than three weeks at the bishop's request. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • He didn't request that it be brought forward. Allegations about his conduct appeared in the media. 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
            • After which he asked that it be brought forward... Kevin McE (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] C. Everett Koop (RD)

Nominator's comments: So, he was Surgeon General of the US, but his influence on public health worldwide cannot be ignored. --Abductive (reasoning) 23:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "For all the latest medical poop, call Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Poo-poo-pa-doop." --IP98 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Serious Comment The career section and "koop report" section needs an orange tag for lack of sources, then needs the orange tag resolved. The legacy section is pretty well sourced. --IP98 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict), was just about to say exactly the same thing. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the obituaries which will be published there will information on his career. We should be able to use these to help cite the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - one of the most famous Dr.s of the last century. I came here specifically to nominate it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not seeing the coverage outside of the US at this time, not going to make the mistake of opposing at this time as per Jerry Buss, but unless this does get covered outside the US (more than just wire republishing) then will be an oppose. LGA _talk^edits 23:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply This is from the "please do not's above", it's actually kind of rude, which I don't intend to be, but I'm just quoting as written: "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." --IP98 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, if, as contended this person had an "influence on public health worldwide" (see nomination) then I would expect such an influence to be reflected in worldwide coverage of his death, and an absence of such coverage, points to that not being the case. LGA _talk^edits 00:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, there is a world of difference (no pun intended) to opposing an item because it relates to only one country as compared to to opposing because an event gets coverage only in one country, this is In The News and IMO for something to be listed, it should be in the news in more than one country. LGA _talk^edits 00:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated I am marking this updated--the death section was only two sentences when I checked but the expansions to other areas are of higher value than "his goofy beard will be missed" type comments. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant impact on public health, especially in anti-smoking and AIDS programs. 331dot (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withholding support until cleanup. Clearly worthwhile for the RD ticker based on news coverage, but the article needs to have the orange-level tags cleaned up. --Jayron32 05:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There weren't any tags when I described it as updated, so it's hard to know what cleanup is being requested. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not seeing how this meets the criteria, he was not a high officer of state (POTUS, VPOTUS or Sec. of State), lack of coverage outside of the US indicates he was not regarded as top of his field. LGA _talk^edits 05:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria does not state "a high officer of state", it says "a high-ranking office of power", in this case, the Surgeon General of the United States. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • His influence in the field of public health was tremendous, a household name for starting a rational discussion of AIDS in the US, etc. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Koop was very well-known as a public figure (as the lead says, he was "the only surgeon general to become a household name"). His outspoken/controversial opinions and actions in the 1980s regarding AIDS and other public health concerns had major impact on the way these concerns were addressed in the U.S. -- and doubtless in the rest of the world. He established and gave his name to one of the earliest health-information websites. Frank Zappa wrote a song about him. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (which I didn't bother to say before since I didn't expect any opposition) prominent in public health, very influential in early rational discussion of AIDS prevention (at a time when you got calls for tattoos and forcible quarantine from prominent public figures, or disgusting jokes at best) and began long successful campaign against smoking in the US, greatly raised the stature of his office. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready I am marking this as ready, all current sections are well documented. The large career section has been commented out, since it is very detailed, but almost entirely lacking in sources. I don't see waiting two days more in the hope someone has the time to fix it when the rest is good to go. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant in his field, and a major newsmaker. I am not in love with the lack of sources in parts of the article, but think we should go for this RD entry now. Jusdafax 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding references where needed and where asked for, and have hidden the long "career" section--which is so good I fear plagiarism--until it's referenced in full. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready There is little information about his death specifically. -- tariqabjotu 22:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready In addition to the prior expansions of the article, and the repeated removal of unreferenced material, three more quotes sentences have been added to meet a strict definition of the death section requirement. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. I also just added a bunch of references to the 'Medical career' section so that's good to go in that regard. Spencer^T♦C 00:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian peace talks offer

Nominator's comments: It appears that the recent bombings have fallen just short of making the mainpage, so the presents another opportunity to get Syria back on ITN. The first step, albeit a small one, towards ending the conflict seems worthy of mention to me. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose posting just an offer of talks; not significant unless there are actually talks which result in an agreement or cease-fire. Given the flurry of Syria events recently, it may be worth putting a sticky up again, though. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would support posting a bombing, but not an offer the rebels could refuse. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait If the rebels actually agree to and begin the talks, I would support this as an important turning point. Even if the talks don't bring about a cease fire, just agreeing to meet means both sides are open to some kind of compromise. It would actually be infinately more relevant than a mindless car bombing with no associated attack, no claims of responsibility, and no newsworthiness other than a body count which is found by some people to be horrific. --IP98 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that we should wait to see if the rebels accept the offer. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Michaelzeng7 (alt) (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Italian election

 --RJFF (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs a lot of work: orange level headings in several sections, and it needs a prose update on the results. Support, of course, when those issues are fixed. --Jayron32 15:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon the fixing of the article problems and addition of a proper update. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Need to wait till the results all the results are in, we don't need to jump any gun on this. A number of sources are reporting this as too close to call. Also lacks a results update section. LGA _talk^edits 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like the headline story here is that there's going to be gridlock between the two houses, with center-left in control of the lower house and Il Cavaliere winning the Senate. --hydrox (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Neither party has won the senate. It is hung. --RJFF (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing "neither" to "no" in the altblurb, otherwise I think that's a good way of phrasing this. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This may be more of an indictment on the Italian political system than Wikipedia, but I have no idea what is going on in the Italian_general_election,_2013#Senate section… --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Electoral System" section sort of explains whats going on, but it doesn't really help relate the data in the table to who will form the coalition. As best as I can tell, no one really "wins" an Italian election, but instead the strongest losers form a government. --IP98 (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait This should be held until a government is formed. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The election is ITN/R. The government formation isn't. --RJFF (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fraud? --IP98 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the article is very thorough and in good shape. It's unfair to expect an article about a particular election to explain all the intricacies of the country's political system (as per some of the comments above).80.220.123.162 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but it should be explain enough for the casual reader to understand the results without first having to become an expert in the Italian political system. --IP98 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I dunno, but as a casual reader looking for a quick read, all I need to know is who won the election, the manner of how they came up with the composition can be saved for an FA push later. Also, is "hung parliament" being used in local media? It looks more like a parliamentary version of a "divided government". It depends if the consent of the Senate is needed on most bills (like the US Senate); if it is, it is "hung", again depending if that term is used in local media, if it doesn't (like it can only delay like the House of Lords, or via a rarely-used constitutional provision like the Aussie Senate), then we should avoid using the term "hung", again depending if the local media uses that to describe the situation. –HTD 04:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vote percentages are visible in the infobox, and the very first sentence explicitly names the winners of the election. For people interested in the impact of the outcome, there's links in the Electoral System section detailing how seats are derived from votes and links to the various other Italian political institutions in the lede. Detailed analysis of the political system of Italy is outside the scope of the article, and I think would detract from it. In any case, the article is clearly ready to be posted.80.220.123.162 (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one really wants to read the intricacies of Italian electoral law, just how they arrived in those numbers. The article does explain how the seats are allocated: lower house = national district vote, upper house = regional vote, Aosta Valley = FPTP, etc. –HTD 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has improved considerably over the last few hours (good work). I think we need a quick "reaction/aftermath" section explaining the deadlock in prose and we're good to go. LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've started a section to that effect. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded this a bit more. I'm calling it ready now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 10:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 85th Academy Awards

Nominator's comments: ITN/R, Starts tonight I figured I would get the template posted 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the proposed blurb, let's wait and see which movie actually wins. Otherwise, the standard blurb goes like "X wins Y awards, including Best picture, at the 85th Academy Awards". --Tone 08:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e reworded it to include X and Y instand of the movie/actor names per above advice. To Kevin McE, The award starts today, doesn't matter if it ends 10 minutes after midnight. (the American Football final nomination was added the day of the final, I did not see anyone remove it becuz it ended after 00:00UTC) the ITNR clearly stats "However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted." so thats why posted. About the update, like every other article which is ITNR or regular like elections there is always porposes blurb before the actuall info arive yet.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We never post Best Actor. Because, then it would also make sense to post Best Actress and Best Director etc. However, we can possibly combine it with a photo, if it is for the same movie (Best Actor X pictured). --Tone 11:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ceremony also starts after 00:00 (UTC), so this is the wrong date regardless. -- tariqabjotu 17:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Altblurb we can very easily accommodate best actress per the concern above--I am not sure if the Best awards should be capitalized or not. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose alt blurbs why not best director while we're at it? No, we can't turn this into a laundry list of awards crammed into the blurb. We've only done best picture in the past, lets stick with that. --IP98 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am all for that, assuming the same movie wins best director and best film--otherwise IP's suggestion is too wordy. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb suggestion :

Daniel Day-Lewis wins Best Actor award at the 85th Academy Awards, becoming the first man to win three best actor awards.

LGA _talk^edits 05:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've also updated the main blurb to the Best Picture award, which IIRC, is how we've usually posted this. --Jayron32 05:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support mentioning Day-Lewis in addition to Argo due to his record third win. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Best Picture alone. Neutral to other nominees. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Day-Lewis rather simple: Argo wins Best Picture, Jennifer Lawrence Best Actress, and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third Best Actor at the 85th Academy Awards. μηδείς (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 85th_Academy_Awards#Achievements has some information, but adding that this is Day-Lewis' third Best Actor still needs to be done (especially if were are going to mention this in the blurb). Spencer^T♦C 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support mentioning Day-Lewis per Thaddeus. Three wins is highly notable. Jusdafax 05:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Day Lewis has been added and referenced [9] in the article. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Which Blurb are we using :

1. Argo wins Best Picture at the 85th Academy Awards
2. Argo wins Best Picture, Jennifer Lawrence Best Actress, and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third Best Actor at the 85th Academy Awards
3. Argo wins Best Picture and Daniel Day-Lewis a record third Best Actor at the 85th Academy Awards

LGA _talk^edits 05:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Probably the altblurb that was actually nominated, rather than one snuck in in the form of a question? Jennifer Lawrence's win and 2nd nom is also a record for someone her age. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I vote for 1. Keep it simple. --Jayron32 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I vote 3 then 2. 3 is cleaner and there is consensus to mention Day-Lewis . LGA _talk^edits 05:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, posting. I'll go with mentioning DDL as 3 awards is a record. --Tone 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A pic of Daniel Day-Lewis is available if desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] Daytona 500

Nominator's comments: The Daytona 500 is not on ITN/R, but actually receives more coverage and notoriety than the Cup winner (which is on ITN/R). It has been posted several years. This year's race was especially well covered with the big crash yesterday and Danica becoming the first woman to win the pole (and finishing the highest ever by a woman). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I initially thought it was already ITN/R, but anyways it should be posted. Truthsort (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs prose update for results section. Also I'm not seeing anything about the crash in the article body. Subsections for the crash and for Danica Patrick, with 5 referenced sentences (ie the ITN minimum update) would make this an easy support for me. --IP98 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not one of the Triple Crown of Motorsport so this race is not like one of the Majors in Golf or Grand Slams in Tennis and without any prose on the race to demonstrate otherwise it looks like an uneventful race. LGA _talk^edits 23:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Daytona 500 is obviously one of the most popular races. However i think it should be posted on a yearly basis only depending on notability for that year. This year i really believe it deserves to be posted mainly for 3 reasons. 1) Danica Patrick winning pole 2) The major crash day before the race which injured spectators which is incredibly rare 3) Danica Patrick becoming first woman to get a top 10 finish. I've added alternate blurb to add her achievement as well. The media attention for this race has been massive and it definitely should be posted this year. it does not need to be on ITN/R (also please remember that any oppose based on the race not being in ITN/R is basically invalid as noted many times) -- Ashish-g55 00:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not agree with mentioning Danica's name in the blurp. A top ten finish is not that significant. Truthsort (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats your opinion. every single news article i read out there says otherwise. If you saw the race then you should know they followed her around in the entire race, much more than anyone else -- Ashish-g55 02:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did watch the race and honestly it does not matter if they spend most of their time covering her. In the past, did we ever mention Danica being the first female driver to finish in the top five at the Indianapolis 500. Unless she wins, mentioning this is just insignificant trivia. Truthsort (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how not mentioning her improves anything. clearly she is more in the news than the winner and would be a major reason to post this -- Ashish-g55 02:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Understanding why it's not getting support - not like it's women's cricket or anything epic like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.155.37 (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Altblurb: Per the earlier discussion of Daytona car crash as an ITN item, let's try this altblurb: In motorsport, Jimmie Johnson wins the Daytona 500 and Danica Patrick becomes the first woman to achieve a top ten finish, one day after debris from a crash injured 28 spectators on the same track. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a combined blurb covering the race results and the crash. I know very little about the sport and care less than that, but I live in a region of the United States where NASCAR gets more local media attention than Major League Baseball, and I can testify that the Daytona 500 is possibly the biggest race of the year for NASCAR fans. This year's race got more even more attention than usual because of the prominence of a woman driver, and the crash adds to its significance. As noted above, if women's cricket is important enough for ITN, surely this item it, too. --Orlady (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've added prose on the race & yesterday's crash. In terms of update, the article now meets the ITN standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most important single race every year on the NASCAR schedule, well covered by the sports press, article is updated. --Jayron32 02:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting alt-blurb. The article dedicates a lot of information about Patrick (who also makes the race more notable this year), so posting the altblurb. If there's consensus to use the first blurb, it can be changed. Spencer^T♦C 02:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The crash occurred in a separate race for a separate NASCAR series. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DR Congo peace agreement

Nominator's comments: Historic agreement - its not often you can get 11 countries to agree to anything - whether or not it proves effective in the long run. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use the official title of the agreement to start a new pagE? Same as we had the Azawad declaration pf indepLihaas (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while this is a good thing, we often see the United Nations agree (i.e. over 150 countries) to something which is then summarily ignored (per most recent UN resolutions). Sorry, but not really news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. An agreement to end a long war is notable. We can't assume that it won't succeed or be ignored. Nothing would get posted here if assuming it would be undone in the future was a disqualifier. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re: notability as an important (final?) development in a major conflict. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, an important development. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question to those supporting, what article are you supporting? Can you point me to the suitable update following this newsworthy item? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No update has yet occurred hence "Article needs updating" in the nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, so what are the "supporters" supporting? I suggest the supporters wait for (a) an article to be updated and (b) the update to be suitable, before they offer their support.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am supporting the notability- unlike the discussion below, this nom is not ITNR so its notability must be agreed to. I presume the article will be updated, and not be posted until it is adequate; if it is posted improperly, or not updated, then it should not be posted(or be removed). Your suggestion is noted. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was mentioning that I felt the story was notable (as I judge from non-wikipedia sources), as this is the main point of discussion on most items here. It's pretty well established that determining/working on article readiness and item notability are the two main functions of this page, and that they can be discussed separately. For example, arguments like "I do not think this is a sufficiently important development to post, but the article update is good" and "The article is not ready yet, but the news item is of sufficient importance to post when it is" are both useful contributions to the working of this page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: article is now updated. In-fighting about how to deal with the agreement among M23 rebels today left 10 dead indicating the agreement is not likely to just be ignored entirely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose. Still no reason to believe this will actually amount to anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait There is a pretty good update, but until the M23 actually agrees to it, it's one sided. They're meeting in Uganda right now with the Congolese government, so we'll see. Nice job with the update Thaddeus. --IP98 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, those talks on unrelated to this agreement. The agreement in question is for the 11 countries to "cooperate" (which mostly means stop poking their noses into Congo's problems) in dealing with the situation. There is nothing in it for M23 to agree to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cypriot presidential election

 --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is now updated and as an ITNR item is thus ready for main page. Naturally, another admin should verify that teh update is sufficient before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously pointless since the item is ready, but I wanted to throw in anyway. Nice job ThaddeusB. For what it's worth, I think it's better to not link to the results section directly in the bold link. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Important election. Article looks ready, good work. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is ok... there are a few wording quibbles in it that could be repaired, but it's ready for a link from the Front page. Jusdafax 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some copyediting so it should be good to go. Spencer^T♦C 02:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --Jayron32 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Maze

Nominator's comments: We regularly post the winners of the Alpine skiing World Cup. Usually, we do this at the end of the season, combining men and ladies winners but this year, Maze secured the title 9 (out of 37) races before the end of the season, what is an impressive achievement by itself. I suggest posting now because of that. --Tone 14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) --Tone 14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question when is the end of the season? --IP98 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17 March. --Tone 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if her lead is insurmountable, isn't she still not formally declared the winner until the end of the season? I'm not sure how it works. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now Schedule runs through March 17. Even if the lead is "insurmountable", "it ain't over 'till it's over". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I will formally oppose this until the season is over and she is declared the winner. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now. Lots of reliable sources say she has won although some of them use other words like clinches or seals the title. It's basic arithmetic. 2013 Alpine Skiing World Cup#Overall 2 shows she has 1844 points and number two has 886. FIS Alpine Ski World Cup#World Cup scoring system shows 100 points for a race win. There are 9 races to go. That means number two can get at most 886 + 9×100 = 1786. Winning with so many races to go is notable and should be included in the blurb, and it is in the news now. The official ceremony after the last race will probably get less attention. But since the competition is ongoing and something might theoretically happen (death, doping, the end of the World, ?) let's use other wording. Suggested alternative blurb:

Tina Maze secures the ladies overall title in the Alpine Skiing World Cup with nine races still remaining.

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources state that's it. The three theoretical reasons would probably merit another ITN story (especially the third one). The alternative wording is good. And then in March we just post who won the men's cup. --Tone 09:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support posting it now as long as the altblurb is used. It looks like the early securing of victory has generated a good amount of international coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- ITN has always waited for things to be official, so until she gets the trophy and is declared the overall winner, she hasn't won yet. As a side note, if she died would she still win? Are there any scenarios where she could not win? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, in sports we do like almost every other source in the World: Post when the winner is mathematically certain. See for example Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2011#.5BPosted merged.5D Manchester United win Premier League (the last game was a week later) and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2011#.5BPosted.5D Sebastian Vettel (the last race was 7 weeks later). I haven't studied the rules but there are probably theoretical scenarios like death and doping where she would be removed from competition. In elections we often post before the official results which may be days or weeks after the election. And we posted "Barack Obama is re-elected President of the United States" more than a month before he was actually elected by the Electoral College. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The election is a slightly different situation; the Electoral College is just a formality and while they technically could choose someone other than the percieved winner of the election, they never have. If we posted this person's victory at the end of the season but before she took possession of the title, that would be OK. But I don't believe we post someone as the winner of the election while the polls are still open, even if the winner is mathematically certain. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We often post election winners before all votes have been counted. Vote counting usually starts after the polls close but we actually posted Obama's win [10] before the polls closed in Alaska [11] (we did the same in 2008). Lots of votes in many states were still uncounted, including states Obama needed to win. But enough states were considered safe, even if his lead was sometimes smaller than the number of uncounted votes and therefore not mathematically certain. As mentioned, posting sports winners when the result is mathematically certain is the ITN norm and not a suggested exception here. We are more careful in sports than in elections. We never post a sports winner just because their lead is so large that it appears very unlikely they will be reached. We wait until the win is mathematically certain, and it is for Tina Maze. The theoretical reasons she could be removed from competition are not mathematical, and some of them would still apply after the last race. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] North Darfur violence kills 81

Nominator's comments: Been more than a year since I nominated an article here so hopefully I have got everything right! Recent violence in North Darfur has broken a ceasefire negotiated in January. At least 21 people were killed on 21 February and 60 on 23 February. Fighting over a gold mine by the same tribes earlier in January has now been revealed to have killed more than 500 (I didn't nominate that as details were too sketchy to update the article back then, new figures have just been released) but this is the worst since the ceasefire that ended that. Now we have good details on a currently occurring conflict it is a good chance to get the ongoing situation in ITN. Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, largest recent incident in the region, as per nom. Update looks sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ThaddeusB --IP98 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per rationale given. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as ready in line with support given here. If posted now it would just make the second-last spot on the template. It is a shame the news takes several days to be reported from Darfur (for obvious reasons) - Dumelow (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. Spencer^T♦C 18:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona car crash

Canadian terrorism threats

F-35 grounding

---

Oscar Pistorius granted bail

Japanese whaling dispute

---

Barbados election

 Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Had this been posted and updated when it happened, one could agree there was established consensus meriting ITNR listing. Given it wasn't, it doesn't. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm it IS ITNR for the nth time and it is not yet the oldest article on ITNLihaas (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't read the discussion on decommissioning ITNR, there is strong support among the oppose votes to "reform" the list and remove cruft like this if it isn't actually affirmed by a broad majority. Yelling "But ITN/R" does nothing to show a consensus for notability--or maybe we can link to the discussion that established that credibility? A link to that discussion, anybody? μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link. I count a good number of opposes to that proposal. This nom is not a soapbox to continue the "I don't like ITN/R" refrain. As of now, ITN/R stands. --IP98 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you purposefully being false? I asked for a link to the discussion which established this item as part of ITN/R in the first place. That's not what you gave. And, as mentioned, many of the "opposes" you counted, but did not perhaps read, favor reforming ITNR and removing items like this. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking for a link to the ongoing discussion, not to the discussion where this election was added to the list. here is the link where elections were added. All the way back in 2008. Took a few seconds of entering a search term into the archive search box to find. No fraud here. Just 5 year old consensus. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who has called for removing national elections?(Do you mean just of small countries?) And reform of the list should take place in the context of reforming the entire list, not piece by piece on this page. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending update per ITN/R. Needs final results and prose update. --IP98 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of a "support pending update per ITN/R" vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly that. I support the notability of the item, but do not believe that the update is adequate for main page. I think 311dot said it better below. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all. You support the principle of ITN/R, i.e. it's on ITN/R and needs updating. Which is what you've "supported". Of course, if ITN/R is followed, your terms of support are inherent. There's no point in "voting" that way at all. It's pointless, a waste of your time, a waste of our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realize now the folly of my ways. I'm terribly sorry for wasting your time, Rambling Man. I will endeavour to do better! [13] --IP98 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't get it at all. But thanks. Is this about my distaste at another editor calling an article an "abortion"? You agree with those terms? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Huh? No... I was just pointing out a discussion last year when an ITN/R nom was rejected on notability grounds. In this case, people disagreed that San Marino was "important enough" as a country for posting. The ITN/R haters can be very vocal as well. I don't think you were even part of that thread, I stopped reading it when it got silly. I'm just pointing it out anyway, not trying to start an argument. --IP98 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I had to search the article text for "abortion". There you are. Yeah, I don't care either way. I guess you already knew about that discussion then. --IP98 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well maybe you should have the read the whole thread before using it here in a discussion directed at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I was simply pointing out a nom where an ITN/R item was opposed on notability grounds. That's all. I wasn't trying to single you out in it in any way. --IP98 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article is clearly not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update. National elections are ITNR and since we still have ITNR it is still presumed notable. If anyone feels that national elections are not sufficiently notable for whatever reason(and to whatever degree), then propose the removal of national elections from ITNR, either now or during what I expect to be an upcoming discussion to reevaluate the current list. It should, however, not be posted until the article is sufficiently updated. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the point of a "support pending update per ITN/R" vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the point of an "oppose, it's not ready" vote? 331dot (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just that, it's not ready for main page, it lacks quality or the required updates or has maintenance tags or so on and so on so oppose. Obviously. What a curious question. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point was that we were essentially saying the same thing from opposite ends(support once ready vs. oppose it's not ready), at least from where I'm sitting. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. "Support per ITN/R plus update" is inherent in all ITN/R nominations and doesn't need anyone to repeat it endlessly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. Notability is inherent, not the update. If there isn't one, or it's of poor quality, an event should not be posted. For someone who feels it is a waste of time, you are spending a lot of time on this. No one is compelling you to be involved. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, claiming ITN/R and "waiting for an update" is a waste of time. You need to support once the update is done. A "support pending update" due to ITN/R is a given within the current parameters of going blindly with ITN/R. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I will support things how and when I please, thanks, just as you can. If you feel it is a waste of time, then ignore me. I prefer to state my support now; if the update is poor or nonexistent I would be happy to reevaluate my opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The sooner the "support per ITN/R pending update" brigade give up, the better. The current point of ITN/R is that the article is inherently supported pending an update. It doesn't need a bunch of ITN fanboys to say "support per ITN/R pending update". Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And when you are the sole arbiter of what is a valid comment on this page, I'll keep that in mind- namecalling nonwithstanding. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sorry, when did I say that? I asked what the point of your vote was, when it's clearly covered by the current ITN/R guidelines, there's no need for you to "vote" at all. What a waste of time! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I already explained my vote by saying that I was saying the same thing you were, just in a different way. If you don't see that, or disagree that was what I did, there's not much I can do about it. I'm done now. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Good news. Look forward to your next meaningless support of an ITN/R article "pending update". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Timing note: The BBC reported the result 22 February. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when this is updated, ITNR item. Otherwise, not ready for main page yet.--Jayron32 02:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war

Nominator's comments: All over the news, major event. Bombing is close to Ba'ath party headquarters, no one has claimed responsibility as yet, but this is a lead headline on many news websites, and a significant development in the war. --Jayron32 18:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This sort of thing is, unfortunately, somewhat routine in Syria at the moment. However, in the absence of a sticky, it would be remiss of us not to post stories from the conflict occasionally. Thus I support posting this item now. Also the article seems already fit-to-post. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• An addendum, I would (weakly) support re-instating the sticky. Perhaps a link to Ongoing conflicts as a permanent main page feature might work; however that article would probably need a bit of a shake-up. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- I was going to nominate this, but then remembered there was a sticky. Why is the sticky gone? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See here --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a war zone, these types of bombings have body count but have zero impact on the course of the conflict. --IP98 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (either sticky or blurb) This is a war; these types of bombings have body count and determine the course of the conflict. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Medeis. This was a car bombing, not a military action. There was a car bombing a few days ago in Pakistan, and again a month ago. Last week in Iraq. How will this car bombing directly impact the course of the war? --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the end of the Battle of Aleppo (2012–2013) will be a turning point, this is a car bombing. How do the two compare? --IP98 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prbbly rather go back to a sticky, but the point is that at some point the straw will break the camel's back. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. A big deal if you were standing near it, obviously. But, in context, this is "bomb explodes during war". Formerip (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as notable because of targeting of civilians and death count. Also support suggestion of reinstating the sticky as the conflict is still very active and quite possibly at a critical phase. Looking at the ITN discussion linked to above, the sticky was removed less than two hours after this was proposed, when only three people has posted. Subsequently to the removal there were three opposes. So I think the removal was rather unsatisfactory, as the unduly short time period meant that the apparent consensus was not a real one. Neljack (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this will probably go up, but it could use a bit more of an update. Consider February_2013_Quetta_bombing Bombing and Perpetrator sections for examples. Things like approximate size of bomb, description of vehicle, likely perpetrators, etc. Was there gunfire or some other insurgent behavior immediately after the blast? The way I see it, this is one paragraph in the middle of a massive article, where the Quetta bombing had to stand on it's own. Anyway... --IP98 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: As far as I'm aware this is the first car bomb in the war, in which case this would be a major event. If the resistance did it, it means they have openly adopted terrorist tactics. If the government forces did it, it means they have sunk to a new low from launching conventional military assaults against civilians. If it's not both, then somebody else entering the war by creating such a large incident (rather than covertly supporting either side) is terrible news in itself. Chamal ^T•C 03:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um there was December 2011 Damascus bombings (which occured while Arab league observers were there), February 2012 Aleppo bombings, March 2012 Damascus bombings, April 2012 Idlib bombings, 10 May 2012 Damascus bombings, 2012 Deir ez-Zor bombing. And that's just those mentioned as car bombings in List of bombings during the Syrian civil war. These have perhaps slowed down recently (or may be they're just getting less attention) but at least historically the typical response has always been the rebels accused the government of being behind the attack, perhaps as a false flag attack while the government says it proves the rebels are terrorists. I don't really get why a car bombing is particularly unique anyway. Suicide attacks regardless of whether cars were involved would seem to be of a similar character, it would depend more on the target, the area affected and the number of people killed. Even non suicide bombings (bombings involving planted bombs rather then more convential military attacks) wouldn't seem that different again depending on the target, area affected and number of people killed. P.S. To be clear, this isn't intended as a comment for or against this item appearing on ITN. Simply on the idea that there's something special about this because it's a car bomb. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. In that case, I'm moving to 'weak support. I'm not saying that car bombs are unique; the point I'm trying to make is that it's an unconventional type of attack targeting civilians (and often used by "terrorists") whether it's a suicide attack or not, and it would be highly unusual for either side - a government or a resistance movement recognized by many countries - to do something like that. Chamal ^T•C 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - This event is relatively minor in the context of the war. By now, this sort of thing is no longer surprising.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- The event is notable. At the same time, Syrian civil war is no longer sticky. The event, may not result is a war, but itself is worthy to be in ITN. Death toll is high.Regards, theTigerKing  19:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards

 --Hektor (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this in principle as the fact that the authoritative body on the French language would admit a British writer is significant; though I would submit that the article on the Académie française also be listed aside from Mr. Edwards; his article could be lengthened as well. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I'd like to get fully behind this just because it's random and everything ITN should be but isn't. However, the main selling point - an étranger being chosen - is weaker because, as can be seen from the article, he has dual nationality and because Julien Green was previously appointed. Edwards' article would also need a lot of development before posting. Formerip (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is perfect for DYK. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We often do DYK a disservice by portraying it as a refuge for articles that are sort-of-vaguely-interesting-but-not-important-enough-for-ITN. The article is only about a third the minimum length it would need to be for that feature. Kevin McE (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is in absolutely no way qualified for ITN, there is no notability here, and we do not post new admitees to the academie francaise. But this could be expanded and then nominated to DYK. Until then it's just plain esoteric. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per article quality (article length too short), neutral on significance. Regarding Medeis suggestion above, how does this meet the requirements of DYK? DYK is not "ITN's table scraps" The article is not new, nor has it seen a 5 fold expansion, in the past 5 days. --Jayron32 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is there is no way this marvelously notable person's article could possibly be expanded to meet the DYK requirements? Perhaps you are right; he doesn't belong on ITN or DYK. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can we start just redacting/refactoring blatantly wrong calls to ship something off to DYK when it's not in any way qualified for it? GRAPPLE X 20:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why "elected at"? "Elected to" or "elected a member of" would make more sense. --Hegvald (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the nominator speaks French, where at makes sense? μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Encyclopedic content. But, not notable. Even the subject is not well known outside Britain. Worthy of DYK but AFAIK not ITN.Regards, theTigerKing  19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sony announces release of PlayStation 4 console

[Posted] 2013 Hyderabad blasts

Nominator's comments: Current news. More than 9 confirmed dead, while at-least 30 injured. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More recent stories take the deaths number to atleast 15 and injuries to 50.It's the first major blast in India in years.Also the first one in Hyderabad in almost 6 years. TheStrikeΣagle 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support pending confirmation that it was an act of terrorism or other deliberate act; from what I can read it's not entirely clear yet. Also pending article updates. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the number of blast been reported, I'm sure this would be an act of terrorism. Awaiting for a reliable source confirming the same. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Karthik.After the hanging of Afzal Guru some terrorist organizations of Pakistan warned of a retaliation.I guess this is one of them. TheStrikeΣagle 15:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Lets not jump to conclusions. Lets stop posing as investigators or crime scene experts or foreign policy experts or social scientists. Wait for the confirmation from the officials. The incident happened just under 2 hours ago. Lets not be caught media frenzy.Regards, theTigerKing  15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, lets wait till reliable sources come out with some actual or potential information. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Deccan Chronicle, Rediff, Zee News, Sky News, Indian Express and many more media calls the blasts as terror attack. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What the media says doesn't matter. What the Government of India says is final and binding! Don't be in a hurry. The article is notable since it has been reported by AP^[1] and is expected to be covered globally. Lets wait for the official response.Regards, theTigerKing  17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been covered by BBC, and by almost all the media publications in India. Anyways, if we should be waiting till official confirmation from GOI, I don't think this article would make its way to ITN anywhere by this week. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said the comments of media doesn't matter, I meant Indian media brandishing the attacks as "terrorists attacks". You had mentioned in the comment that the media is calling the attacks an act of terror. Hence, I posted the comment. You have taken my comments in a different direction.Regards, theTigerKing  17:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indian Mujahideen is the prime suspect, by the government now. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Official Response Director General of Police of Andhra Pradesh Dinesh Reddy has called the blasts "the handiwork of a terrorist network". Union Home Secretary R K Singh has called the two simultaneous explosions a "terror attack".[14] Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde has talked about intelligence on a possible terror attack prior to the blasts. Do we need more confirmation from GOI? Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Terror attacks are important news worldwide. --Nizil (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no facts on the ground and, to be crass, this is about as unusual as people being shot in Chicago. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "no facts"?? Ohh, you want more fatalities??? Things may be usual in Chicago and Pakistan, but not so in India; and rarly in Southern India. Reportedly, Improvised Explosive Devices has also beein used for the attack. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, now I hate Indians because there aren't enough of them dead? (See the weird irony there?) The simple answer to your question is no. The article stands on its own. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant incident. While tragically common in Pakistan (which I suppose is what Medais is thinking of), this is not so common in India. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, partition notwithstanding, I was not mistaking the two countries. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Now this news is published in all the leading news agencies. -Abhishikt (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The southern part of India is relatively peaceful compared to the northern parts where most of the insurgency takes place and the areas around Mumbai and Delhi where most of the bombings in India have occurred. Even if you consider the whole of India, it's not exactly a place where people and property get blown up every other day unlike some other unfortunate countries in the world right now. So I'd say this is significant enough to be ITN. Chamal ^T•C 03:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 2013_Hyderabad_blasts#Attacks needs to be fully converted to prose and needs just a small bit of expansion. ALT blurb proposed as well; I think that's a little better. Spencer^T♦C 07:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Isn't "blasts" too informal in an encyclopedia? Aren't "bombings" (if terrorists are the suspects) or "explosions" (if you guys want to play it safe) better alternatives? –HTD 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bombings will be the better word as per the current scenario. Can some admin help me regarding this one; as there exist one redirection on the same. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have frequently used blasts before and I don't think it's too informal; for example, the wording in another ITN item is "A bomb blast at a market in Hazara Town...". Spencer^T♦C 20:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PULL we dont post 13 deaths (meanwhile Syria had about 50 and we dont post it). Chamal is also wrong. Hyderabad and Bangalore have had several bombings in the decade.Lihaas (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus to post, and we do post items with a consensus to do so. Removing the "[Attention needed]" tag; if there is consensus to pull (or a violated ITN criterion or other issue, like copyvio), then the tag can be used. Spencer^T♦C 20:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, please let me know where WP:ITN/MinimumDeaths moved to. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kaoru Kobayashi

Nominator's comments: notorious Japanese murderer. He sparked the second wave of moral panic against Otakus after Tsutomu Miyazaki. Besides, notorious victim also, due to her age. Thank. Kotjap (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't see this as meeting any of the three criteria for the ticker. Was not in an office of power, not particularly notable in their field (this isn't Adam Lanza or the Beltway sniper), and international impact is limited. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, only American murderers are famous? Kotjap (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the murderer being Japanese or being executed by Japan; he only had three victims. Pardon my examples; that's what I'm most familiar with, but where this person is from is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Absolutely not, just look at the vigorous opposition to the "Chris Dorner" nomination. Why does everyone assume that Americans have a predominant advantage for appearing on WP:ITN when, if anything, the opposite is true?--WaltCip (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Kotjap's defense, he may have been responding to my purely American examples. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose meets no suitable criterion. (also not updated.) μηδείς (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very minor and specialist interest, in fact the most interesting thing is that Japan continues to exercise capital punishment. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kepler-37

Nominator's comments: News of Earth-sized exoplanets are not very rare these days, but this just reported planetary system has two of them which are smaller than Earth, and one of them is almost the size of the Moon. Nergaal (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - From the linked Science News article: "The record for the smallest planet beyond our Solar System has been shattered by astronomers." Sounds like a significant discovery to me, but article needs some work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now ready for mainpage in terms of article quality, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a handsome little article and good news for xenobiologists. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Interesting and significant news. Article in good shape. This will be a fine ITN blurb. Jusdafax 19:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marking ready: a good article with support and no apparent opposition. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A good ITN item, only reservation is a question of systematic bias this looks like it is only a local news story, has anyone got a link to a Kepler based news article ? Is it even making news over there ? LGA _talk^edits 00:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over where? Kepler-37 b?

AFAICT, the source is an American website reporting a paper in a British journal by an international team of scientists (American-led, but international), using a BBC report as its main source of information. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, only earth based news stories. LGA _talk^edits 01:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support I think many people will find this an interesting news item. Greengreengreenred 01:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Exoplanet discoveries are usually not newsworthy, but the size of this particular exoplanet makes it unique.--xanchester (t) 01:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article about the planet created. Greengreengreenred 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada election

 Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Timing note: The BBC reported this result 20 February. LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Had this been posted and updated when it happened, one could agree there was established consensus meriting ITNR listing. Given it wasn't, it doesn't. We could also use a link to the actual discussion that established this as having consensus for ITNR. Without that, posting this by default is a fraud. μηδείς (talk)
    • Fraud? Is that what an ITN/R nom is now? Fraud? You may not like ITN/R, but right now it stands, and we're a long ways off from consensus to scrap it and degenerate into bickering over the importance of every single election nom. --IP98 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Fraud, unless you want to give a link to where this was established as consensus. Link? Please? Link? μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • FranklyI think that fraud is over the top. ^{After all, I don't see you crying fraud every time some idiotic footbal game is nominated under ITN/R}. That said here is your Link!! <blink>Link!</blink> Liiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. No fraud here, just 5 year old consensus. --IP98 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're welcome. --IP98 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update per ITN/R Needs prose update. Any objection to a helpful move to the correct date? --IP98 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is not "in the news", it happened five days ago. Moreover, there's virtually nothing in this article besides a few tables. Nowhere near good enough for main page, and missed the boat for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia's nationwide electric car charging network

 --Beagel (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose while interesting, this is not a significant enough event to warrant front page coverage. The coverage of this event is one sentence in the linked article. Jehochman ^Talk 16:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded. While I agree the article is not in the good shape, I can't agree that the event is not significant enough. This is actually important milestone in the usage of electric cars and as such, it is probably more significant than election of some politician about who 90% of Wikipedia readers never heard about and 80% of readers will never remember his name. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is notable that Estonia is the first nation where one can drive an electric car anywhere in its territory and be within range of a charger. Important technological advance. 331dot (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant and important news item that would make a decent ITN blurb. Article issues must be addressed, however. Jusdafax 06:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An important advance in this technology. The article update meets minimum standards, and is of good quality. Marking "ready". Spencer^T♦C 06:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose looking at the numbers in other countries who have already been running such schemes such as France and Germany, despite this being "country-wide" it's a relatively small number of vehicles. Estonia has a small population, is a much smaller country than those mentioned. Even the UK has 3,000 charging points (Estonia will have 165 fast chargers only). Plus it looks like Estonians will have to buy their cars, in Paris, for instance, the cars are free of charge to use! Interesting enough, but not a massive "leap forward". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the deal with the three-year-old cleanup tag at the top of the article? There's no discussion on the talk page about it. We should deal with this prior to a main page posting. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "This is the highest concentration of DC chargers in Europe". First country to complete nationwide (albeit a small country). We post other infrastructure items (Beijing subway), so this can go too. As for the 3 year old cleanup tag with no talk page item or reason specified, maybe it should just wander off. --IP98 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Once again, something much more appropriate for DYK. Government launches happen all the time, like Jimmy Carter's plan to metrify the US they don't always work out. We do mention infrastructure upgrades when they are actually completed--not when they are announced. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the sources given as saying that the system is completed. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source which says the number of users is expected to double to 200 next year? The news seems to be that there are enough stations to handle the current (no pun intended) capacity at best. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where it says there are 200 privately owned cars, but I don't see where it says they only have enough capacity for that many cars. What's notable here isn't the number of cars, but the infrastructure completed to allow one to use an electric car anywhere in the country, a first step to allow for expansion of electric car use. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Estonia is 1/120 of the size of France. This isn't really that big a deal. Electric vehicles (and free ones) are prevalent across Europe, this is just a maths thing, tiny country so easier to allow electric vehicles everywhere. It's not newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size is not relevant; Estonia is the first sovereign country to do this. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, size is relevant when the story intrinsically relates to the size of the infrastructure. Otherwise if Vatican City managed this "feat", it would be a bit of joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't need a bicycle to get around Vatican City, let alone a car. This development enables something for an entire country that was not previously possible. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My example was an extreme version to demonstrate that Estonia is tiny in comparison to most sovereign states, and that countries like Germany and France have far exceeded this "capacity" already. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't drive to every corner of Germany and France with an electric car; the capability is what's notable, not the actual capacity. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well with an open Europe, I'm looking forward to you demonstrating to me that I could drive my electric car from Tallinn to Russia, leave it at the border and make my way across. Or maybe down to the Latvian border. And in any case, as I've said before, providing full coverage for a tiny country is hardly newsworthy when many countries provide vastly geographically larger coverage, and for free!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the same argument for the posting of the elections of sovereign countries. We don't post California Gubernatorial Elections, or Bavarian elections, or even elections for Mayor of New York City, and all of those have larger populations than some countries whose elections we post. It's still the first national network, even if there are larger subnational entities with networks. Whether it's free at point of use or not is irrelevant(somebody pays for it somewhere). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. Firstly the Vatican is too small, then Estonia isn't too small, then New York is too small.... And yes, free to use is quite important too, as if you're expecting the average Estonian to fork out for an electric car to make the most of the 100-odd charging points, then it's ridiculous compared to the 3,000 points in the UK, or the free-to-use vehicles in Paris. Whichever way you look at this, it's quaint, a DYK maybe, but not, by any means, an ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria PM resigns

Nominator's comments: Following below discussions it seems unusual circumstances warant posting. This was a result of nationwide protests and not a political gimmick. I believe we posted romania.. --Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps the last three PM resignations in the last day (Bulgaria, Tunisia and Nepal) can be summed up in a single blurb? I'd vote to support all three of them, if it came to that, but a condensed, "The PMs of three different countries resign within 24/48 hours of each other" would be better I think. 80.220.123.162 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Combining the three resignations in a single blurb is a good idea.

• I have suggested this type of combined blurb before, and in principle the idea was accepted in the talk page. The purpose of ITN is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest," not to provide abridged news headlines. The prime ministers of '''[[Hamadi Jebali|Tunisia]]''', '''[[Baburam Bhattarai|Nepal]]''' and '''[[Boyko Borisov|Bulgaria]]''' each resign. Kevin McE (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would Support this idea as a good compromise idea. LGA _talk^edits 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose This isn't anything on the scale of the Arab Spring, but it is unusual circumstances. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose wait till a new one takes office (see cmt above). LGA _talk^edits 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb - per Kevin McE and others. Good thinking; this is a fine direction to take the triple resignations, blurbwise, and I salute all involved. I have proposed Kevin's blurb on the alt line of the nomination. Downside is, we now have three articles to check for updates and/or improvements needed. If we can pull this off, it will truly be an ITN team effort! Jusdafax 02:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on Boyko Borisov and Hamadi Jebali each have a paragraph on the resignation, could do with a little more in each case, as for Baburam Bhattarai there is zip all so that would need urgent attention. Am off to post a note at the wiki project. LGA _talk^edits 03:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What more? Its got pertinent info and its more than min?Lihaas (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of work on the Bhattarai article to update the lede but it was reverted by someone who said Bhattarai was still the PM after all, which may make this nomination moot. Can't look into this further at the moment. Jusdafax 19:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think this may be falling apart, Kiril Simeonovski makes a very good point below and in the cold light of another day it looks like this may not be as straightforward as it may appear. LGA _talk^edits 21:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Rex (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for the combined blurb since the three resignations have nothing to do with each other and occur in countries that are geographically distributed on three different continents with no strong ties between them. Importantly, there are three completely different reasons that caused each of these PMs to step down. It would have made more sense if all of the three countries were from a single region with the appearance of a wave of demonstrations followed with resignations but that is not the case here. Stylistically, it seems to be good to save room on the main page by making the merger, but this will only produce a pure manipulation by combining non-sense things.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support solely the resignation of Boyko Borisov as the protests over power prices in the country have been on a large scale for more than a week.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears not to be, in Lihaas' words, a "gimmick" resignation. However, it appears the country would've called an election anyway within the year, it just got bumped ahead by a like 4(?) months; and it seems the election would be held within the near future. So I'm torn, but considering the likes of the women's cricket cup got in pretty easily, while this one is languishing is pretty embarrassing. –HTD 14:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I was seriously considering posting this but Borisov's article has two orange tags on the top and half of the article is a "Controversies", what makes it not a good material for Main page if highlighted. If the shape of the article improves, that's another story. --Tone 14:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remvoed the tag and conetent as a BLP violation (given the obama's articles bodyguard remove any actual criticism of him, th eallegation without justification are wholly inappropriate). should be eady now. And probs tunisia too nepal has issue though

HTD, this is not a politicalgimmick, nepal i.s. this is a resultof people power PRTESTS.Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I said. –HTD 03:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Robert Coleman Richardson

Nominator's comments: I would think a Nobel Prize winning physicist should qualify under "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly qualifies for DC #2. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, but observe that "merely" being a Nobel laureate has not generally been considered sufficient (c 10 awarded per year, presumably die at same rate). Kevin McE (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Armenian presidential election

 --Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support. ITN/R. Presidential election in a medium sized sovereign country. Article has been updated, and is adequately sourced.--xanchester (t) 04:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sympathetic as I am to such an ancient ant post-soviet state, this is just not anywhere near the level of notability needed to override the well-supported proposal to decommission ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "well supported" you mean a 47% support for decomissioning and a 53% in favor of keeping it, you'd be correct. It'd be a rather odd definition of "well supported", but if you're going to invent your own idiosyncratic definitions for words, and not tell anybody you did so, you'd be correct. For the record, I'm one of the 47%... --Jayron32 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I support the proposal to decommission ITN/R, it has not yet succeeded. Until such time as it does, ITN/R remains in force and thus the notability requirement is automatically met. Neljack (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given ITNR is supposed to represent clear preexisting consensus, 53% simply doesn't cut it, does it? μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITNR, but never a fan of mentioning anything other than results in the blurb, especially because half of all elections we post have fraud allegations now anyway. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, sir, but these are not just allegations. The man who came second presented a list of violations and have already self-proclaimed himself the winner. There is a high probability of a political crisis in the country that might, unfortunately, end like the last time, when 10 people died. I don't think you see this in many countries. --96.233.54.82 (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting generic blurb. The article is in good shape. In case there is some major development later, that can be another ITN story. --Tone 07:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly no point in listing here, this was pushed to main page within 3 hours of nomination. What a joke. I don't care if it's ITN/R (which is more and more of a joke), but there was no chance at all for any consensus that the required update had been made, no consensus that the article was in the right condition to be presented at the main page. We're not Reuters, we can wait a few hours to make sure we get things right and professional. Apparently some editors here think otherwise. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written in stone, and can be removed if the article is of poor quality as you claim. Name calling is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bangladesh protests/conviction

Nominator's comments: Pretty big conviction for a pretty big civil war. --Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. From above: Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time. NickSt (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My stupid comp was cockuing up. I fixed it, but there already was a bold blue link.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal PM resigns

Nominator's comments: Instability in a country recentl emerged from civil war just prior to election. note i would wait to read more as some late news is saying it MAY be postponed. --Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if you recommend waiting, why did you nominate this now? Do you want to withdraw the nomination and renominate later when the event actually occurs? Spencer^T♦C 20:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority o f articles i read say he resigned but noe suggested it was put off so I wasnt sure. I thought others might now more. But do we not (sometimes we have) post changes in govt for sovereign states?Lihaas (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As noted on the Tunisia PM, we generally do not post resignations if they cause an election. We wait until the election occurs. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless there is some unusual circumstance triggering the decision to resign. Shouldn't be ITNR either way. 331dot (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose see the well-supported discussion in favor of decommissioning ITNR at talk. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, and also inaccurate; this policy is in effect now, and support is barely 50% at best, hardly "well-supported". 331dot (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose wait till a new one takes office. LGA _talk^edits 02:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unless there are huge protests, the resignation of a prime minister is not as significant of an event as the election of one.--xanchester (t) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia PM resigns

Nominator's comments: Instability wracked Arab Spring country without a working govt. --Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, significant event with relatively trustworthy source in target article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the resignation of a PM is ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the next election might be, but this isn't. I call for removal of the ITNR listing. 331dot (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We generally do not post resignations if they cause elections. We wait until the election occurs. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notability as a significant event. There needs to be a decent prose update somewhere, could be in Hamadi Jebali or elsewhere. --LukeSurl t c 23:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC
• Comment. The article does not discuss the resignation. I'm leaning oppose as I don't see some unusual circumstance prompting the resignation; this situation happens not infrequently; but I'm open to changing my mind upon updates and any additional information. 331dot (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the revised alt blurb proposed below. Oppose. There's a single line in the article about his resignation. Article is in dire need of a substantial update. There's no discussion at all of the controversy over Chokri Belaid's assassination and how it relates to Jebali's failed attempt at forming a technocratic government and his ensuing resignation. The article doesn't even mention Chokri Belaid. I'm leaning towards a support, but only after an update that discusses the significance of this event.--xanchester (t) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

updatedLihaas (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support highly significant resignation of a leader elected in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. -Zanhe (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wait till the appointment of a new one. LGA _talk^edits 02:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm satisfied with the update, but the blurb still needs to indicate the event's significance. I propose as an alt blurb: "Prime Minister of Tunisia Hamadi Jebali resigns after failing to form a technocratic government, following protests over Chokri Belaid's assassination."--xanchester (t) 01:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Correa wins re-election as President of Ecuador

Nominator's comments: The article still needs a proper update, but the results are known and the main opposition candidate has conceded. --Nsk92 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose Linking the Ecuadorian general election, 2013 article to the main page as it stands. Needs a lot of work. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 00:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you strongly opposing the nomination or the article? If there is consensus then it will only go up if the article quality is suitable. No need to oppose for that reason -- Ashish-g55 01:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are one in the same, the nomination is to place a link to the article, nominations should not be made on the hope that an article will be updated, ITN is not a race, get the article ready first then nominate, guarantees a speed confirmation, There is a tendency to view a ITN/R as a boilerplate support and often the quality of the article update goes unquestioned. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 02:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are made to gain consensus and while that happens in parallel the article gets updated. Elections are one of the few ITN/R where consensus is actually needed since there are just too many countries/elections all year long. Im not saying dont debate the quality of article, just saying no need to strong oppose based on quality right at start of nomination before we have any consensus to even post -- Ashish-g55 02:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is on ITN/R, so the only thing that is of relevance here is the update, the prose is, to be blunt, awful, the sections on Democracy Code and National political organizations are barely coherent English, there is nothing on the actual campaign, what were the key issues in the campaign, the Opinion Polling section needs to be expanded on or just removed. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 03:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No longer opposing this, the article IMO now just about scrapes over the line to be linked to from the Main Page, however it is still missing details on the campaign. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 21:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article is sufficient and will improve. Notable event and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 02:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• TBH I dunno where the hate is coming from. It's not GA-standard but is postable. Needs an update though. –HTD 03:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since this article will be posted, I have already made a few improvements, and will continue on. LGA saw fit to triple-tag the article, which I find interesting in light of their strong oppose. Jusdafax 03:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and assume good faith if you read my comments the only reason for my oppose is the quality of the article, it has nothing to do with the subject. If you (or others) can improve it (I don't know nearly enough about Ecuadorian politics to do so) then reason for my oppose goes away and I will support. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 04:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags because there was no talkpage discussion and, in any case there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the article that would merit them. Tags are for serious problems, not just to note that there is room for improvement.

The article does have an empty subsection for "parliamentary results", though. Formerip (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal, there are issues and do warrant the maintenance templates, I have detailed some above and Jusdafax has worked to address some of them. I have updated the talk page. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 10:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support prose is a little awkward in the article, but it otherwise is passable for a recent event at ITN. For reference, the article for the recent Kuwaiti general elections was in much worse shape before getting posted to ITN. 80.220.123.162 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support as an ITNR event. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. ITN/R. Has been sufficiently updated.--xanchester (t) 04:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as ITNR event. See the well-supported discussion in favor of decommissioning ITNR at talk. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns'. Modest Genius ^talk 14:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved, posting. --Tone 07:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Belgium diamond heist

 --Remember (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update needed This isn't (as of this edit) in the three full paragraph form, but I can support it as notable when it is. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, a blip without ramifications of any kind. In fact, it doesn't even deserve an article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, an exceptionally large theft, certain to become infamous. Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support interesting and newsworthy story. Secret ^account 07:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is an unusual story. Some more prose would not harm, though. --Tone 07:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support highly unusual and notable crime, though the article is a bit on the short side. -Zanhe (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The size of the theft is significant.--xanchester (t) 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Large diamond thefts are rare events. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual indeed. This sort of reminds me of the Lufthansa heist. Widespread coverage, definitely ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I will post this the second that the article has three honest-to-goodness solid paragraphs as required by the ITN criteria. Support per significance is at a consensus, now we need the article to be at minimum standards. --Jayron32 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, it has been minimally updated, so it is now posted. --Jayron32 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Keiko Fukuda

[Posted] RD: Jerry Buss

Nominator's comments: Mr. Buss was the owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, the most successful NBA team in history. --Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Buss was highly notable and a star in his own right. I am not a fan of the team or the sport, but am well aware of who he was. Jusdafax 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose owner of a franchise? Seems popular in basketball terms but his death is attracting far fewer global articles than Richard Briers, so I'm not sure. At all. Do we have any precedents of "owners" being so significant to be listed at ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi The Rambling Man. I posted a quote below from current NBA commissioner David Stern which I think shows how Buss wasn't just an owner, but had a real impact on the league. --IP98 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The death of Jerry Buss, the owner of one of the world's most popular basketball team is huge, and probably will have significant implications for the NBA. Support Secret ^account 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose IMO a minimum starting point for even considering any listing on ITN is good global news coverage in this case I am not seeing coverage of this guys death outside of the US domestic media. As The Rambling Man points out, in the case of Richard Briers death there was a whole range of outlets covering not just the domestic English news sources. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 23:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Should have waited, now seeing the global coverage start to come in so moving to Support for RD entry. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most famous owner in history of NBA. --Jayron32 23:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The Lakers are one of the most notable teams in the NBA, and the NBA is of global importance. The NBA has a huge following in Europe and Asia, not just North America.--xanchester (t) 23:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very important owner. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not seeing any coverage outside North America, happy to change if this is demonstrated. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply [Guardian UK] [Times of India] Found these two in just a few minutes of poking around. Jusdafax 00:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - not going to support just yet (as they're agency stories), but I'll strike my oppose. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if it was just those two but the BBC one does not appear to be so. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 00:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support per ITN/DC #2. Per David Stern "Jerry Buss helped set the league on the course it is on today," NBA Commissioner David Stern said. "Remember, he showed us it was about 'Showtime,' [18] Global story per BBC and Times of India coverage. Per the PDN #3 above we should not object to an " event only relating to a single country". If you read his article, and the referenced LA Times article, you'll see he was a major part of reviving the NBA in the 80s. --IP98 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless there is compelling evidence as to how the owner affects the team other than providing a budget. Which of the death criteria is he thought to meet? Kevin McE (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Number 2. As the owner of the most successful, and probably most popular, NBA team in history, he was widely regarded in the sport of basketball. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think we have yet been provided with evidence that he "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." We need multiple sources saying he's a very important figure in basketball. If we get that I will be happy to support. And the article doesn't do a very good job of explaining his importance; it says little about how much impact he had as owner. The fact his team was highly successful does not tell us how much impact he had. If we are going to post, this needs to be rectified. Neljack (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (I think). I added remarks from Kobe Bryant and David Stern to the death section of the article. I fail at using inline refs and would love it if someone could fix my markup. There are also "tweets" from many current owners [19] here. --IP98 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Will now support. I think the Showtime article gives a good idea of his impact. If anyone is eager, that article would probably provide some good material to further explain Buss's impact and innovations in his own article. Neljack (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, wide coverage, very important individual in their field. – Connormah (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can see supporting the architect of the Twin Towers, but not the owner as such. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also point out that at one point or another he owned the Los Angeles Kings (NHL/ice hockey), Los Angeles Sparks (WNBA/women's basketball), Los Angeles Lazers (MISL/indoor soccer) and I believe some other stuff. So he was represented across a couple sports. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Jerry_Buss#Sports_ownership currently has zero references and Jerry_Buss#Early_life_and_business_career could probably use some more. Spencer^T♦C 07:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per Kevin McE. Not notable as a real estate investor, where he originally made his fortune. In addition, the owners generally don't have that great of an impact on a teams performance (relative to a player or coach, who's respective deaths I would consider more highly. I'm just not seeing specifically why his ownership was so impactful on the industry as a whole, as in something that he changed (as a comparison, Art Modell, another sports team owner who we didn't post, was instrumental in bringing NFL and the TV broadcasting industry together). Spencer^T♦C 07:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Hi Spencer, with respect, the current comissioner has stated "The NBA has lost a visionary owner whose influence on our league is incalculable and will be felt for decades to come". If you read the article Showtime (basketball) you'll get an idea of his importance. --IP98 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's cool to have that quote thrown around, it's pretty empty. It doesn't say explicitly what he did. In addition, some of the information in Showtime needs to be in the Buss article, because otherwise that's not there. Spencer^T♦C 15:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "The current commissioner says" is hardly a resounding neutral source. Like politicians, they can be obsequious in these circumstances. Reliable sources would be more convincing. Leaky Caldron 12:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm not really seeing the notability here. Was he really the first to have the idea to have cheerleaders and music at games? It's also certainly his right to direct how his team plays the game. Like Leaky Cauldron, some other sources would help. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely had an impact on one of the best players of all time, Dennis Rodman.[20] NYTimes leads by calling him an "owner and an innovator". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• From Laker Girls...

Jerry Buss commissioned the Laker Girls in 1979 after he had purchased the Lakers. He believed a basketball game should be entertaining, and he was a big fan of college basketball.[1][2][3] Cheerleaders were not common in the NBA at the time, but Buss ordered the formation of the squad—a team of top female dancers who were as talented as they were sexy—as part of his vision for Showtime.[1][3][4]

• Support Highly notable figure in NBA history. -- Anc516^(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NY Times headline uses the word "innovative" and I think that's appropriate. Innovative people should pass RD criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every innovation is noteworthy. Incredible to suggest that anyone who has ever been described as innovative in an obituary is therefore " very important figure in his or her field". Kevin McE (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It has to be to reach the level where the NY Times puts it in the headline. I would say that someone described as innovative by definition is very important to the field in which they innovated. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking as ready. There's a rough consensus to post. Hot Stop (Talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready removed; Jerry_Buss#Sports_ownership is still devoid of references. Also, I'd really prefer if the sentence in the article "He inspired the Lakers' Showtime era with his vision that basketball games must be entertaining" was expanded with specific examples (such as were mentioned in this nomination), but I'm willing to post once the referencing issue is resolved. Spencer^T♦C 07:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow look at that! Someone who opposed the nomination filibusters it by tagging it for citations needed after consensus to post is gained! I'm re-adding the ready tag so a neutral admin can review it. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't appreciate your assertion that I'm filibustering the nomination, I clearly stated that "I'm willing to post once the referencing issue is resolved" and I just did. If the nomination was marked ready even after the referencing issues had been noted, the issues evidently needed to be pointed out in the article as well. This is no different than any of the other RD candidates that have had referencing issues. A [ready] tag is dependent not only on nomination consensus but also article quality. Best, Spencer^T♦C 22:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, Post As an oppose, I think this is supported and updated and should go up asap. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T♦C 22:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted for RD] RD: Richard Briers

Nominator's comments: still working in 2012, only just reported EdwardLane (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose though prolific, there is no evidence in his article that he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his field. --IP98 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant career, lead of own top TV show (filmed before the Queen) everything from sitcoms to Shakespearean tragedy, of similar stature to Larry Hagman and Jack Klugman, whom we listed. μηδείς (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support highly significant figure in British acting, both television and film (including some box office smashes), and voice artist for the epic Roobarb. Worthy of RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Updated I think this might go up rather quickly if it's updated but the article also has an unhelpful (unspecific) tag for references as well. I won't be able to devote a lot of time to this, so I hope someone else will devote a little, maybe our nominator? μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a stab at adding a couple of refs, you're right the tag is completely unhelpful so I've removed it in the hope that any specific concerns can be individually tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have now added refs for most, if not all the more contestable claims, have tidied up the remaining refs, and expanded the death section a tiny bit more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If Mindy McCready is an oppose, how can this be a support? He had a long career, but by no means was he recognized as the top of his field, or at least I see no evidence of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand this comment correctly, you seem to be asking how can this nomination possibly get any support if yours isn't getting any? μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Medeis. Highly notable in his home country.--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable performer in television, stage and cinema. Few deaths of actors receive top billing on BBC 6 O'clock news. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not only high profile news in the UK either - TV News top story Australia, Entertainment news top story New Zealand, and also covered on MSN (USA), even local US news (Star Tribune Minnesota), US entertainment news Broadway World, not to mention Netherlands, BILD (major German news source), Globo (Brazil), Poland - and note, especially on these latter ones, that they aren't just reprints of press releases but actual articles in their own right. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Some of the views here are wildly overstated. Yes, he was once a popular sitcom star in the UK, but not by any stretch of the imagination a "highly significant figure in British acting". "Few deaths of actors receive top billing on BBC 6 O'clock news".... except on days when most of the BBC journalists are on strike. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's cynical and you have no evidence that it would have been any different on another day at the BBC. We have many sources for those institutions not on strike, or those which aren't in the UK (did you actually read Black Kite's post above?) that don't rely on your cynicism for Briers' notability. For the record, which views are "wildly overstated", in your opinion? It's worth reiterating that this is just to decide if Briers should appear on the recent death ticker, i.e. it would just say RIchard Briers, it's not a main blurb. Just in case..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Limp support. His star billing on BBC 6 O'clock news may be partly explained by the fact that he was very much a BBC product. But hugely well-known and much loved. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Sky, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune, The Independent, Volkskrant, El Nuevo Herald, Kurier, Onet, Irish Independent, Mason City Globe Gazette, etc etc note his passing... Plus those that Black Kite has mentioned above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I support. But I said "hugely well-known and much loved." Maybe I should oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (tickles Martin with a feather duster)... just suggesting you could be more than weak about it!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Support getting coverage round the globe Chicago Tribune, ABC News. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable, ITN-worthy figure for RD. Jusdafax 22:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While a few more reactions to his death would be nice, the update is good enough, and with clear consensus posting for RD. Secret ^account 22:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an 8,000 plus update is sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Mindy McCready

Nominator's comments: Suicide of a country music star, top headline --– Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose RD. Not at the top of her field; if the article country music doesn't mention her, she's probably not that important in the field. Spencer^T♦C 06:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for RD, although the story is certainly in the news, even in the UK, international BBC news homepage has it as its third story, and it was one of around six news headlines on British radio this morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I regard myself as a bit of a popular music fan/expert - but until this morning I had never heard of her. (I'm in the UK, if that matters.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Terribly sad, but that discography shows that she was not at the top of her field. Kevin McE (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Well this is a textbook example of "minor figure" which has been stated elsewhere on this page. –HTD 11:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I can not see that she was at the top of her field. Not a worldwide known singer.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I must agree with the other opposes here. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose While this is covered globaby (news.co.za, bbc.co.uk, abc.net.au et al.) none of the articles (or our own WP article) make mention of why this person was held in high regard in her field, so for that reason I can's support. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 23:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I must agree with the others about her significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Patrick

 ---- Ashish-g55 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware that this isnt a Daytona win which would obviously be more notable but first woman ever to achieve this is still quite a feat in Nascar history. -- Ashish-g55 00:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Sports trivia. Possibly more suited to DYK, I think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Maybe if she wins, but as is this isn't really a feat. Although I fail to see why this would be suitable for DYK, where's the new or 5x expanded article, Bong? GRAPPLE X 01:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'm not very familiar with DYK, but I wanted to offer the nom something a bit more constructive than just "sports trivia". --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that 2013 Daytona 500 was created so long in advance, and the actual race doesn't occur for 7 days so the likelihood of a 5x expansion in 5 days is virtually zero. There's a possibility that if there's not much expansion between here and next Sunday, and there's a lot interesting to write about during the race, a dedicated contributor could expand the article 5x and get it DYK worthy. Ryan Vesey 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll support once (if ever) wins her first NASCAR race, as a female winning in a male dominated sport would be of great importance for the feminist movement and in the sports world. But winning the pole position, while being a first, it is too soon to evaluate its legacy. Secret ^account 02:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If she wins the race, that would be notable, but pole position does not guarantee that. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is actually a pretty big deal and I think it's a good fit for DYK. On a personal note: NASSCAR driver, IndyCar driver, yoga, model, and actress?? Danica Patrick, where have you been all my life?? :) --IP98 (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've been thinking about this for awhile. There have been women in the Sprint Cup Series since its inception and none of them has managed to win a pole. This is a really big achievement. We often run events that the New York Times has failed to comment on. In this case, the New York Times decided that the event was sufficiently significant to merit an article. It's also been picked up internationally in Australia. When she becomes the first woman to win a race, we'll post again. Ryan Vesey 02:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not ITN material, as others have said an interesting sports triva point (which will no doubt feature on an future set of Trivial pursuits questions) but not really that significant and not making news headlines globally, nothing on the bbc.co.uk, sport24.co.za or abc.net.au. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 03:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Winning pole position is not winning a race, and that's lowering the bar too far for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's an achievement, but not nearly as big as if she wins the actual race. There usually isn't much correlation between winning the pole and winning the race. Now if she wins the Daytona 500, however, that's completely different and I would strongly support posting that. -- Anc516^(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 15:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's brilliant that we're starting to recognise some of these kinds of story, but I'm afraid a pole position won't quite cut the mustard. I imagine as soon as she (or any other female) wins a serious level motor racing event (F1, Indy Car etc), then it will be a completely unanimous decision to post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean like the IndyCar race she won 5 years ago? --12.41.124.2 (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that's even better than a pole isn't it? Where's the debate? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NASCAR is considered a serious level racing event. Secret ^account 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Cypriot presidential election, 2013

2013 World Allround Speed Skating Championships

Nominator's comments: I think Kramer's achievement in itself --- in a much more competitive field than his predecessors who won five overall titles --- makes this sufficiently noteworthy. --sephia karta

• Comment: The article needs a prose update. Spencer^T♦C 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with suitable update. Probably in vain, as it's unlikely to make it, but as a skating fanatic I don't have a choice. Fgf10 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Request clarification This seems to be some kind of heptathlon (well, quadrathlon) event, with scoring being by points accumulated over 4 distances. The times in at least some events seem far short of what would have been competitive in the single event world championships last year (are some rinks faster than others?) I'd need assurance that this combination of disciplines really is a season's goal for many of the major competitors rather than an occasional "novelty" event. Should we emphasise the single distance championships in Sochi instead if we want the real prestige event? Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is allround skating, the oldest form of skating championship, and most certainly not a novelty event. The times are slower because the championship was ridden in Hamar, which is a sea-level track. Altitude tracks like Calgary or Salt Lake City are much faster. The men's winner this year, Sven Kramer, holds the world records on both the 5k and 10k, but those were done at altitude. As far as prestige is concerned, it may be a national difference, in Europe it is most certainly at least as prestigious as the distance championships (in the Netherlands even more so), but I think in North America the singles are rated higher. Fgf10 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose On the same day of the conclusion of the World Championships in alpine skiing and biathlon, this event is shadowed as simply non-significant in the world of winter sports. In addition, this is only a competition consisting two events which are attributed attention and notability far from the main World Championships in the sport that each year are held at the end of March. Hence, Kramer's achievement, albeit outstanding, is comparable to achievements in local or exhibition competitions in other sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your comment only a competition consisting two events which are attributed attention and notability far from the main World Championships in the sport that each year are held at the end of March. The World Allround Championship is the most prestigeous of the season. Kramer's is literally a once-in-a-century achievement, no accomplishment in speed skating could be more notable than this one. If ever speed skating news should be included in ITN, it is now.sephia karta | dimmi 19:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but that's simple not true. It is one of the main championships. It's just two different disciplines. And 'comparable to local of exhibition competitions'? Where do you get that from? Not only is it insulting to the athletes, it doesn't even make sense. Furthermore, presumably skating isn't popular in Macedonia, but is is also simply not true that it is "non-significant in the world of winter sports". Yes, it is popular in a limited number of countries, but in comparable number to for instance rugby. It is more widespread than some other winter sports such as curling or biathlon. Fgf10 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • • No, speed skating is not popular in Macedonia, but I'm one of those who follows the sport and perfectly knows what is the difference between each of the three World Championships that took place every season. You're right that this one is the most prestigious and the oldest World Championship in the sport, but it doesn't simply mean it's the most popular one with most followers or the one that receives most attention in the media. It's like to say that the FA Cup in football as the oldest and most prestigious competition in the sport is the most popular one that anybody is aware of much more than any other competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant that the World Allround Championship is not the main event in the calendar season with two other World Championships and the Single Distance Championships being the most popular one that each year receives much more traction than this one and consists of most of the Olympic disciples. The result is great for me from a viewpoint of a Kramer's fan, but it's really tough to consider it for inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but that is still wrong, is is one of the main events in the skating calender, which also includes the sprint championship, and the single distance championships. And for the record, if it wasn't for the 6 championship record, I would not have supported this for the main page, as it is a niche sport for most of the world. Fgf10 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't get it wrongly. I have nothing against the Dutch people and their sentiment to this sport, but the things we're discussing now here are known only by those who follow the sport regularly. Let's wait to see how the others will comment and vote for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A world championship in a major winter sport featuring an outstanding record-breaking achievement by Kramer. Alpine skiing and biathlon would also have strong case if nominated, but they're not a reason to oppose this. Neljack (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty neutral on this one, but if posting, I'd cut out "Kramer becoming the first man to do so six times since the tournament's inception in 1893". It makes the blurb too long. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mainly for lack of update to prose in the article; other than the "Rules" section it is a list of stats, the article needs work before a nomination can be considered. As a general point, I cant seem to find any real clear explanation as to how the event works, the best I could find was World All-Round Speed Skating Championships for Men but that is two links away from the article and only if you click from the nav template at the bottom. Basically the article needs a lot of work. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the blurb is shortened a lot and only mentions Kramer. It's only ITN material because of his record sixth title for men (the women's record is 8). I have suggested an alternative blurb with 94 characters instead of 224: Sven Kramer wins the men's World Allround Speed Skating Championships for a record sixth time. I have mentioned the record in the lead of the bold article and added a link to samalog in 2013 World Allround Speed Skating Championships#Rules, for readers interested in the points system. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Notable record. High-level tournament. NickSt (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like this a massive sporting event that's not getting the news. Only 855 Google News hits? Even UAAP volleyball (guess what that is) had more [24] Google News hits. –HTD 03:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

Nominator's comments: I think Cricket World Cup is in WP:ITN/R --Gfosankar (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The women's world cup is not ITNR. Hot Stop (Talk) 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support anyways This only occurs once every four years. 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final should be the article linked to and it needs a game summary in prose. This shouldn't be posted before that. Ryan Vesey 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment: Not sure if 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup Final should be the target article, but in either case, a prose update about the final is needed (all the prose appears to be about the group stage. Spencer^T♦C 17:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed the blurb to point to the final. Both articles are updated. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once updated fully. World-level competition in its respective sport, plus women's sport is under-represented at ITN so it's a nice addition to have. GRAPPLE X 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as the article has a little bit more prose added. Despite not being in ITN/R, we should be more progressive here, and encourage these kind of nominations, as Grapple X says above. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support exactly the sort of sporting ITN we need. Given that it's every four years, it should probably be ITN/R. Front page sports news in a lot of countries, which is a major advance for the women's game. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose recurring event, not on ITN/R, with no evidence that this occurrence of the event is especially noteworthy. Recommend nom to ITN/R first. --IP98 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend throwing out ITN/R and base our decisions here on reason. Ryan Vesey 19:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ITN/R needs an overhaul, and some standardized process for noms (similar to ITN/C) but for now it stands. --IP98 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when did a recurring event have to be on ITN/R to be allowed to feature on ITN? Surely it's just the other way around, that ITN/R are automatically allowed given a decent update, this shouldn't preclude other regular events that the failing ITN/R system has yet to agree to. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ITNR cannot be used as argument against inclusion on ITN. ITNR doesn't work like that. Any such opposes should be disregarded. -- Ashish-g55 19:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply what's the point of ITN/R then if any routine occurrence of a regular event can go up based upon the whims of the contributors at that time. ITN/R brings consistency that is lost when <<insert favourite sporting event here>> goes up this year, not next year, up again the year after that. --IP98 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly "what's the point of ITN/R". You can't just make rules up as you wish IP98, really. Time for you to take a break I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stated my position. It's very clear. Participants are free to agree or disagree. I will not derail another discussion with you. --IP98 (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't clear at all, other than it clearly demonstrates that you don't hold the same understanding of ITN/R as the rest of the community. Any case, glad to hear you won't derail future discussions. In the meantime, the cricket article has come on leaps and bounds, all good! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support if there's a decent article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've given the article a basic prose update which appears acceptable. The scorecards need to be added, but that's not a reason to oppose, I think. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The sections Australian innings and West Indies innings need in-text citations (see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2013#[Posted] Super Bowl XLVII. "Route to the final" should contain at least some prose on the performance of Australia and West Indies in addition to the main article link. Ryan Vesey 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, pretty much. There's room for expansion, but that's certainly perfectly acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I helped Black Kite, we've now got a decent stab at a finals article which should be acceptable, certainly much more so than many of the stubs that seem to get accepted via an ITN/R vote! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It has always been made clear that the absence of an event on ITN/R is not a valid reason to oppose it here. This has received extensive media coverage (I was pleasantly surprised, since women's cricket often doesn't get its due), and we need to feature more women's sport events. Neljack (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nice article. An event which represents the international pinnacle of a sport. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have added a talk page to the article, since the lack of it seemed a bit odd. I rated the article "start" since it is beyond a mere "stub" now, in my view. Jusdafax 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting Article appears in good shape; consensus is to post. Spencer^T♦C 23:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting futile oppose. Is women's cricket really that popular? Even Gaelic sports have more pageviews. IMO the only women's sports that are mainstream enough are women's tennis and women's golf... and probably women's football. There are no stats on the article on how many people were at the stadium, but it seems that it's not that big enough enough to host the last time the men's Cricket World Cup came into town, which probably means it's not that popular. –HTD 12:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

63rd Berlin International Film Festival

• I believe this is ITN/R. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Correct - it is a ITN/R. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Very Important film festival - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We do, however, need a blurb to evaluate and ensure that the article is sufficiently updated. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as one of the most important annual film festivals and please specify a blurb that the Romanian film Child's Pose (Romanian: Poziţia copilului) directed by Călin Peter Netzer won the Golden Bear.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITN/R. Blurb is same as what got posted last year. [25]. Prose update is about the same in Childs Pose and CMD. --IP98 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there are so many film festivals (see List of film festivals), and I don't think this one is notable enough in itself for ITN. The Child's Pose article is currently rather a stub. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this oppose is invalid, as the Berlinale is clearly included in the list of ITNR. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITN/R. One of the larger film festivals, although not as prominent as Cannes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the ITN/R appears to be the Golden Bear award, not the festival itself. As noted above, the subject of the blurb should be the Golden Bear winner, and it's currently a poor stub which is mostly plot and a cast list. Should also be noted the plot looks like a copyvio, being replicated elsewhere.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sub-thread could have and should have ended much sooner. -- tariqabjotu 20:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ITN/R is BIFF with golden bear in parenthesis. [26]. Last year the bold link was Caesar Must Die [27]. If there is a copyvio please add the appropriate tag to the article so that it can be addressed. --IP98 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps I missed the instruction which told us all which of the two articles should be the subject matter for the blurb. Have removed the blatant copyvio. Still oppose based on the fact the festival isn't actually in the news, the only thing that really made the news was the Golden Bear winner. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] As I stated, last year Caesar Must Die was the bold link, which was the golden bear winner. south china morning post, reuters and la times if you're doubting notability. --IP98 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't really matter what was blurbed last year, where is the instruction as you have interpreted it? The Golden Bear winner is the important part of the blurb, and that article is not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] where is the instruction as you have interpreted it? What? --IP98 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Perhaps I missed the instruction which told us all which of the two articles should be the subject matter for the blurb". Please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I didn't cite any instruction. I suggested two blurbs, that's all. What are you on about? --IP98 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Are you not following this? Perhaps you're tired. You made up some rule about which item should be in bold and then when I asked where it came from you said "What?". Seriously, take some time out and do something else if you can't follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "You made up some rule about which item should be in bold" I'm sorry? I did no such thing. Kindly provide diff, perhaps we're misunderstand each other. --IP98 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] You provided this diff and stated the movie was bold linked. Doesn't look that way to me. The bold linked article should be the movie, not the film festival. Anyone who has supported the main page inclusion of the stub needs to re-assess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Ok, so I misread the diff. My mistake. How does that translate into "You made up some rule about which item should be in bold"? --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just read what you wrote. Turns out you were mistaken, as are those who have voted to support a very weak stub. Perhaps ITN/R isn't clear enough here. End. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] No, not end. You've insisted that I "made up some rule about which item should be in bold" and demanded a citation for that rule. Twice. I made no such claim. Simply insisting that I re-read what I wrote isn't a response. I've re-read it. No where did I say "this is the rule on what to bold". Then you made the condescending statement "maybe your tired" and "do something else if you can't follow". Where did I write there is a rule? Where? Provide a diff please. --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] You said "ITN/R is BIFF with golden bear in parenthesis. " You then contradicted yourself. At length. So let's just let it go now, ok, since you're getting too involved. The bottom line is that the movie should be the bold link (despite the fact it wasn't last year) and right now, the movie article is not good enough, despite anyone claiming "support per ITN/R". End II. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] ITN/R does have BIFF with golden bear in parenthesis. That's still not me stating any rule. It's a statement of fact. So where did I "made up some rule about which item should be in bold"? Where? You've still not provided a diff where I explicitly stated that there is a rule. Please provide the diff. Now please. --IP98 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose for now WP:ITN/R clearly points out that it is the Golden Bear that is the notable portion of the event. The bolded article in the blurb should be Child's Pose. That article is a stub that is in no way fit for the main page. If that article is improved (and while it's not necessarily applicable in this venue, I'm talking about a WP:HEY style improvement) then I support posting. The article needs a lot of improvement in addition to the introduction of enough information on the Golden Bear/Film festival aspect. Ryan Vesey 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. One of the most important international film festivals. Here it's rated the 7th most important ([28]), and here [29] it's second in the list, and according to our own article here it is the "largest publicly attended film festival worldwide". In 2011 Cannes was ITN with the film festival in bold, not the article film. The Berlinale's been ITN for the last 2 years, why not this year? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we do happen to bold the festival, I still oppose posting in the article's current state. The article hardly has any prose, surely there's more available than what exists right now. Ryan Vesey 15:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support of the alt blurb, but only if the article on the film is expanded and updated.--xanchester (t) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Iff the article on the film is updated, this is a good example of what should be on ITN, but what cant be posted due to concerns with the articles concerned. I would go with the alt blurb also. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posting] Blast in Pakistan

Nominator's comments: Information may change as data received --Gfosankar (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment There is now an article stub February 2013 Quetta bombing --IP98 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Taking precedence from the Chris Dorner nom below, as the article itself indicates, this is a frequent occurrence in Quetta.--68.101.71.187 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you clearly know so much about it, when was the last bombing in Quetta with a death toll over 60? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In January, apparently --IP98 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you admitting that you're editing from yet another address? Alex's question was directed to the IP, not to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to Alex's question. This is a collaborative effort. You're welcome to submit a notice WP:AN/I if you believe I'm a sockpuppet. --IP98 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were replying on behalf of the IP. Of course, it wouldn't be AN/I, you know that. But noted, I'll keep my eyes open. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This blast appears to be pretty notable on the grounds of its media coverage and the high death toll. We really don't need to count comments and votes that adduce own prejudices on the precedence that the story with Chris Dorner wasn't posted and that the scales for inclusion have been thereby raised which is not true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Such a high casualty figure will generally be newsworthy. This has nothing whatever to do with the Dorner story. Seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but there should be an article about the blast.Egeymi (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with an article on the blast itself. Event is notable for a high death toll due to (what seems to be) terrorism. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support massive loss of life. Pitiful that IP is trolling around Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iff someone creates an article on the event. It's not like biographies where an event is a new development in their life. If this event is significant enough for ITN, it's significant enough for an article. Ryan Vesey 21:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you be studying? :) --IP98 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A deadlier attack in the exact same region barely a month ago. Clearly Pakistan is facing an internal insurgency, and I see no reason to post every incremental update. Major attacks against government forces, major government offensives, political milestones, sure, but a car bomb in a soft target like a market place seems to be pretty routine for that region. --IP98 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the bombings in January were several coordinated events, vs this single attack, puts it in the "tragic but not notable in the context of terrorism in Pakistan" pile. --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a note, we did post those attacks on ITN as well. Spencer^T♦C 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - an article for the blast needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Substantial death toll and extensive international coverage. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose There is no article, if this event is of significance it needs it's own article, once there is one come back and it can be reviewed based on that but until that we should not consider it. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 22:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article has been created. -Zanhe (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, once there is an article with a proper update. High death toll. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is up and reasonably fleshed out. Jusdafax 02:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Huge background section is mostly boiler plate: another summary of a long running conflict. Bombing section is ok, could probably use another inline ref. --IP98 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose At best this should be a sticky for an ongoing cynical political conflict waged in supposedly religious terms. None of the attackers are people or their victims notable per se. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't enough going on for a sticky. Ryan Vesey 03:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major attack, very high death toll. Front page news across the world. -Zanhe (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The blast section needs some attention. I'm not sure what's going on with a hanging sentence that didn't end: Photos from the scene showed groups of desperate people rushing injured into ambulances, as [11][12] with nothing after it. Also, another inline reference for the section would be nice, if applicable. Spencer^T♦C 05:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added a new inline ref to the 'Bombing' section as requested, and reordered the article sections for reading flow, by placing the 'Background' section lower down. I have also added some relevant material to the 'Reactions' section and added various Wiki-links. The article meets the requirements for ITN, and as I see consensus to post, I am marking it as ready. I have also made minor modifications to the blurb as the death toll is now over 80 and may grow still larger. Jusdafax 21:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Article update is solid and there is consensus to post. Spencer^T♦C 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

2012 DA₁₄

[Posted] Russian meteorite explosion/shower

Nominator's comments: A meteorite exploding and raining debris is rather unusual. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's a bit too early to make an informed decision, but this looks something I can support. I'm just wondering if it was definitely a meteorite, or if it was possibly a satellite. As long as this isn't something mundane like a gas leak - and that doesn't appear to be the case - I agree that this is pretty interesting and unusual. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This article connects the case wit DA-14 indirectly. Also, the meteor shower happened at the approximate time of the projected fly-by. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-russia-meteorite-idUSBRE91E05Z20130215.89.76.232.102 (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I was skeptical, but then I heard this news story on the radio, and it is now on the front page of the New York Times. Article is a bit weak yet, but improving. This event impacted a wide area. Jusdafax 08:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Fall of a meteorite causing damage and injuring at least 400 people is pretty significant and something that we cannot evidence every day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great story and lots in it as an hook into an encyclopaedia. --RA (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I added an altblurb, mentioning the over 400 injured, which seems much more notable than showing the area and breaking windows of the original blurb. Also I believe the correct term is "meteoroid", not "meteorite" as the NYT and the original blurb used (before I corrected it). The Tunguska event article also uses the term "meteoroid". Thue (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says 500 people at the bottom of the article. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Events like this are pretty rare, especially when considering the number of injured. Very notable, indeed.--Droodkin (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb What really sets this apart from other meteorites are the injuries. Fgf10 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, some of the footage of this event is, well, staggering. Latest BBC update states over 500 injured now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We can simply update the blurb if the reported number of injured increases.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I note we have a free image of the trail of gas it left in its wake File:Chelyabinsk meteor trace 15-02-2013.jpg, and the ITN box is currently image-free... --MASEM (t) 14:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting the free image. μηδείς (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting the free image per Masem. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Heavens! Not only consensus, but absolute unanimity! When was the last time that happened on this page? (And let us be grateful this one was not as powerful as the Tunguska event.) - Tenebris 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.247 (talk)
• Comment. Injuries are now up to 1,000 [30]. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 1,200, just put meteor russia in a search engine. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The image would be a good addition. LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to add the image, but in my opinion it doesn't look like much of anything when it's shrunk. It would be nice if we had a free image of the fireball to use. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting the free image, right now - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we mention the fact, that two meteoroids came inside the human area of activity on the same day? They are 'unrelated' as per their orbital parameters, but they are definitely related as per the time and place in the solar system in which they appeared. To say that they are completely unrelated is an over-interpretation. One asteroid entered the atmosphere and created damage to the planet, but the other one grazed the human sphere of activity, came inside the geosynchronous orbit, this was the closest observed asteroid flyby ever. This is a rare coincidence as can be. 89.76.232.102 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The wording for the current blurb is quite long as-is; do you have any potential suggestions? Spencer^T♦C 23:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"about 1500" is marginally shorter and more updated. Drop the "central"? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] 2013 meat adulteration scandal

Nominator's comments: On-going scandal which started small and was assumed to be localised, now EU wide. --RA (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it affects many countries, has throwbacks to BSE, demonstrates the stupidly complex (and potentially hazardous) delivery chain of meat within Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naturally expect oppose from those in the US etc who have never heard of it" Why would you say that? --IP98 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you two continue your customary flirtation somewhere else, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than this being as repulsive to Westerners as finding there's puppy meat in your hamburger, is this really important? μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It sort of is more important because many meals have been found containing pork, which is clearly unacceptable to Muslims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. (Jews too, of course.) I'd echo what other users are saying: this appears to be a very wide-ranging scandal. It's affected sales in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and suppliers from France and Luxembourg to Romania. The pig aspect is overlooked but important. And it looks like the Irish government knew for six weeks and didn't make their knowledge public. There's also persistent questions about the effect of a horse tranquiliser called 'bute', which may have found their way into the human food chain (as opposed to another horse tranquiliser, 'K', which enters humans more directly). The whole thing's a massive fustercluck; it looks like a lot of trusted firms have been flogging dead horses. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jews go to Kosher providers who cut the animals necks and salt the meat personally. The EU horse-free stamp has never meant anything. But thanks for the concern! μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know that you speak for all British and Irish Jews, Medeis. How very generous of you! AlexTiefling (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to bring up the EU Stamp sect of Jews it's up to you to provide a reference, not me. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're the one who mentioned an EU stamp, and no-one mentions sects until you did just now. I just asked you not to pretend to speak for all European Jews, as to whether they all shop at separate Kosher shops. (Hint: I shop in the Kosher section of my local Sainsbury's.) What the hell sort of reference do I need to ask you not to make sweeping statements on subjects of which you are manifestly ignorant? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Please, won't someone think of the children?" ploy in reference to Jews is new for ITN, but here are all the google result for "jews concerned""horse meat" eu. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, this is absurd. All I said was "Jews too, of course", in reference to Muslims not wanting their beef adulterated with pork. You've created this massive distracting tangent by challenging my aside. I am not sure what part of what I've said is rebutted or tackled by your excessively-specific Google search. I don't know where you're going with this. I am quite tired of your pointlessly derailing tangents and high-handed know-it-all attitude. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally don't know from Muslims. But I understand they have Halal butchers, just like Jews have Kosher butchers. Nor do I know if such orthodox butcheries are illegal in the EU and if only EU crats can give EU stamps. But in the US anyone who cares can go to a real Kosher or Halal butcher, who can be sued for fraud if he lies about his business. How stating this amounts to offensive all-knowingry on my part is beyond me. You still haven't given a single source about Jewish concern for this in Europe beyond your imagination.μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go Medeis, CNN stating "January's discovery of pig DNA in beef products is of particular concern to Jews and Muslims, whose dietary laws forbid the consumption of pork products. Jewish dietary laws also ban the eating of horse meat". We learn something everyday, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not just one burger. It's not just burgers from one supplier. It's not even just burgers from suppliers from just one state. It's lots of food products. From lots of suppliers. In lots of shops. Across lots of states.

  It's looking like an EU-wide conspiracy. But, in a more profound sense, it is important because it exposes how little we know where our food comes from - and even what it is - not only food consumers, but even food suppliers. God knows how long we've been eating horsemeat in all kinds of products from cheap burgers to frozen lasagne ... and all across Europe. --RA (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  And last of all, the package wasn't marked "may contain horse meat" (or puppy meat) which means both some level of fraud and a failure of the food safety regime. --IP98 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The article is in decent shape and this is a blurb ITN readers can really sink their teeth into. Jusdafax 21:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'm actually quite surprised this hasn't been here sooner. I had thought myself of putting together a nomination for this, but I was having trouble coming up with a big "wowser" moment. This has been in the news for weeks, with many repeated, ongoing stories, but it's lacked that one big attention-grabbing "event" that many people seem to think ITN events need, news items that go one for a long time but with no singular "event". Given the widespread opposition to the several times the Senkaku Islands dispute was shot down for lacking the big, attention grabbing issue (despite the fact that the dispute has maintained a relatively constant presence for several weeks) is why I didn't think this one had the chance with the regular crew here. However, on the merits of the verifiable criteria (as opposed to personal opinion) with a topic being in the news, and having a good Wikipedia article to point to, I can wholeheartedly support this. This is an ongoing thing, it's continuously in many news sources, and it's got a decent article. I can't think of why this shouldn't be on the ITN section. --Jayron32 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clearly a notable, wide-ranging scandal affecting millions. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as an encyclopedia, should we be using words like "scandal" in our blurbs? I think not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's encyclopedic if that's what it is being referred to as(which I don't know a wide enough range of sources to know if that's so or not). We shouldn't use our own language, either way.331dot (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this started off as a UK-only story, now it's spread across Europe. The issue isn't just horsemeat, as pigmeat has also been found in meals that are supposed to be halal. The real issue isn't that horsemeat has been made available for human consumption - there's nothing wrong or illegal with that and it's delicious and cheap - it's that its being passed off as beef. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose personal shock that one may have eaten horse sounds more emotional than anything else. Unless someone was poisoned or died or a huge conglomerate is bankrupted or someone like Branson or Murdoch or Trump is convicted this is about as enchanting as the floating toilet story. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point is that this entirely undermines the process by which meat is tracked from "farm to fork" throughout the whole the EU. Sure, most of us can get over eating a bit of horse, but some can't, and some instances of contamination involved pork being included in meat products that Muslims had eaten in good faith. The contamination potentially affects half a billion citizens in the EU. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)You're not seeing the issue here. Let me ask you two questions: (1) What did you eat for dinner this evening? (2) Did you? The scale of this scandal means those two questions need to be asked by half a billion people (population of the EU). --RA (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's called activism. WP is not an investigative or regulatory agency, our wishes notwithstanding. The story we would be reporting is, "people nauseated by imagination without specific personal evidence." μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not "activism", it is a huge scandal [31] that is still on the news a month after it broke out and affects most of the EU. We tend to post scandals that affects so many people, that unless it is being seen as gossip/tabloid or too centric. Secret ^account 22:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the article was activism. I said our posting this because it is important to do something about this is! activism. See Wikipedia:Activist. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this is obviously a big deal. The EU has outlawed BST and are pushing for the labeling of GMOs. I agree with Jayron though that it's hard to draw a line and come up with a good blurb to post. Ideally some EU member state will release a detailed and scandalous report which can be put into the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Support while it been news for a couple of weeks already, this is a huge scandal that is rapidly changing, and considering the area we are talking about, not no third world country. Secret ^account 22:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a big story in Europe. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as written the nomination seems stale to me. Maybe a sticky would work though. Hot Stop (Talk) 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Continent-spanning food adulteration scandal. News every day for weeks in several countries. Can be tied to today's arrest of three people in the UK if we need a hook to hang the posting on. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if we wait much longer, we'll be on to donkeys. Oh, hang on, we are. And apparently all driven by the needs of the Romanian economy - who says the tail isn't wagging the dog? (or maybe that's next.) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This has become much more widespread than it initially appeared. To those who are saying that it's just about parochial prejudices against eating horse meat (and I personally don't have any objection to horse meat), I would reply that this is about fraud - passing one thing off as another. Neljack (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've marked this ready since the article is good, and support, while not unanimous, is fairly strong. I'll leave to another admin, who hasn't voted, to review and make the final decision. --Jayron32 23:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, since both significant and not ordinary story. Egeymi (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support (This is User:Ryan Vesey) So I put myself on a script enforced wikibreak to get some reading done, but I can't not support this. I'd suggest adding that pig meat was found in the meat as well. While the horsemeat has the yuck factor, the pig meat is of religious significance to a large number of people. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reluctantly. I wanted to oppose just so I could vote Neigh!!!. But it's a decent-sized story. If your meat pie gives you the trots, now you know why, at least. Formerip (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. —David Levy 23:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb question: According to the article, the contamination was discovered 15 January. Was it officially announced today? The blurb makes it seem like the contamination was discovered within the past few days. I can't think of any alternate suggestions, or do people think it's fine as-is? Spencer^T♦C 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s., post-posting, unfortunate there are no strong images in the linked article. But then we all know what a horse looks like, I guess, some even what it tastes like. Martinevans123 (talk)

Buffett buys Heinz

Oscar Pistorius charged with premeditated murder

American Airlines/US Airways merger

---

---

2013 Southern California shootings

Nominator's comments: Dorner has killed 3 people associated with the LAPD this month. The manhunt for Dorner has been called one of the largest in recent American history, and they've apparently found him and are engaging in a shootout now. A good blurb would probably indicate his capture or death. --– Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, an interesting (intense?) and unique (and terrible) story. This may sound crude, but it sounds like a movie, and the repercussions and historical impact are likely to be notable. Also most read-about story on the BBC right now. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, It probably should have been posted a while back, since it wasn't I was planning on waiting until he was caught. Even if he happens to get away, it's a significant enough event related to this to post. I think we need to say "the suspected gunman" not "the gunman". Two deputies were wounded in this shooting already. Ryan Vesey 22:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point re: "suspected". I fixed that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting upon capture or death of the suspect. I'm listening to the police band and live news feeds. They've got him pinned down in Big Bear right now.--WaltCip (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support note there is a heated debate regarding the merging of the articles w/no clear consensus. IMO since ITN posts events, only the event should be bold. I won't lose any sleep if a posting admin disagrees. --IP98 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with only bolding the event, but like IP98 I won't lose any sleep if we bold them both. Ryan Vesey 22:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update needed The socal shooting article shows the manhunt is ongoing. No real info about the shootout in the donner article. I have no idea: is he captured? dead? Holed up? What? --IP98 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barricaded and exchanging fire. This has not yet reached its conclusion, so the update is not yet sufficient. We can guess that Dorner will not survive the day, but exactly how it ends is not certain. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the UK has seen a "cop killer" (two female officers shot and hand-grenaded) plead guilty today, the murder of British cops is far less common than the sad murders of US cops, manhunt or not. Posting this would be really a revisit to the original crime. This is "interesting" and "shocking" but just one of those things, trying to "catch" (or shoot) a perp, and something most of the world perceives as being commonplace in the US these days. And from a technical perspective, there's no good reason this "perp" should have his own article, as noted by the various maintenance tags that the above supporters have clearly disregarded while supporting this article for the main page. Lacking. I would also urge the potential promoting admin to wait until the rest of Europe/Asia etc wakes up to determine if this minor, insular event in the US warrants main page inclusion, to avoid an absolute systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although (unfortunately) such events are common in the US. It is widely covered by significant international media outlets.Egeymi (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - after the guy is caught or killed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I hate to sound callous but when we generally judge disasters by body count, I don't see why we shouldn't treat deliberate killings the same—three shootings, not at the one time, doesn't seem as newsworthy to me as, say, a 20-fatality crash or such like, which we have turned down in the past. Plus TRM has a point about these not being that isolated as events, globally or locally. GRAPPLE X 22:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worse than that, this is the fallout from the original crime. This is "chasing" (and no doubt killing) the perp. Not ITN on an English-speaking global scale. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all like a bus hitting a truck, right? --IP98 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are some crime stories that transcend the limited nature of being a crime story and in some significant way affect the national discourse about something or make significant political impact. E.g. the Trayvon Martin story was one of these, in affecting the national discourse in the U.S. about race and the "stand your ground" laws. But the Dorner story is not it, at least not yet. For the moment it is just a highly publicized police chase/manhunt. Unless it becomes something significantly more than that, I don't see it as fitting for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, the conversation did not change after the Trayvon Martin shootings. There was media buzz over it for a month or so, but no significant long-term impact.--WaltCip (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the Trayvon Martin story was not a good example in the INT context, but, say, the Newtown shooting story pretty much immediately changed the national discourse in the U.S. about gun control. Nsk92 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, how's this for a "national conversation" - since the shooting, there has been a social media outpour of support for the shooter[1]. You will not get that with a common cop killer in the UK.--WaltCip (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I might support when Dorner is caught/killed, but not an intermediate step in this story. Resolute 22:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's barricaded in the cabin in the midst of a gun fight. He's got nowhere to run. This will be the end. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to The Rambling Man and Grapple X :: So let me get this straight: A bus crash, a routine traffic accident, with tragic consequences == OMG support. The conclusion of a crime spree which has seen innocent people shot by police in an international manhunt, yawn, boring, some cops got shot in the UK so who cares. Really? Please, please please point me to WP:ITN/MinimumDeaths so I can figure out exactly what the benchmark is for inclusion. --IP98 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually you might notice I don't line up to support crashes either, but merely pointed out that they feature a greater loss of life and are often passed up. Is this or is this not the case? GRAPPLE X 23:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There was just a huge flare-up about too much focus on loss of life with the nor'easter. Dorner is referred to as the most wanted man in america (or something similar) at [37], [38], and [39] among other sites. Ryan Vesey 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This story is not of only US interest. The Australian (this also refers to Dorner as America's "most wanted man") The Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Guardian, and El País. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shootouts with gunmen who've killed several people are, regrettably, not that rare, particularly in the United States. I'm pretty sure we don't post most of them. Can people provide some explanation of why they think this one is particularly notable? Unless this can be persuasively explained, I tend to think this is a dramatic but fairly transitory news phenomenon, and I will oppose. Neljack (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This shootout is unlike others in the past. Most murderers are not ex-cop/ex-military. Most murderers don't release a manifesto taking on the LAPD. Most murderers don't have $1,000,000 awards offered for information that leads to their capture. Most murderers aren't referred to as the most wanted men in America. This is the largest manhunt in LAPD history. There is nothing average about this event. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure of the relevance of the fact is an ex-cop/soldier. I suppose it might make him more dangerous, but I would have thought that any mass murderer would be regarded as pretty dangerous. I'm not sure issuing a manifesto makes a mass murderer more notable. Has the manifesto had much effect? Has it, for instance, garnered much support, or prompted others to copy him, or provoked much debate? The size of the manhunt and the reward do suggest a somewhat great notability than most people who kill several people, but on balance I still oppose. It's getting massive news coverage in the US because it's so dramatic with the standoff going on, but I stand by my judgments that it is a largely transitory news phenomenon. International coverage isn't that big - despite the drama, it's not leading BBC News, al Jazeera or Xinhua world news. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Less coverage or notability than a bus hitting a truck? That's in the template now. A bus hitting a truck. You supported that based on death toll, but there is no WP:ITN/MinimumDeaths. This resulted in an international manhunt, in addition to all the items mentioned by Ryan Vesey. I just don't understand.... --IP98 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry that you don't understand why I consider an incident involving the deaths of 53 people to be more notable than one involving the deaths of four or five people. Of course, there's no threshold of deaths, each nominations falling to be considered in light of the circumstances of the case, but the death toll is a highly relevant consideration. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why you find an incident involving a massive police manhunt, crossing borders, police shooting innocent people, and a highly trained suspect less notable than a bus simply hitting a truck. --IP98 (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably down to apathy vs empathy, it's commonplace for gun crimes to occur in the US, there's no shock involved for most of us. So a few more police were involved than normal (as a result of them chasing a "cop killer") and a larger than normal reward was offered (no big deal) and borders were crossed (really? unless you mean Canada, a state border is hardly notable...!) and he was a former cop ("highly trained..."!!) ... Meanwhile it's very shocking for most people to see over fifty people killed in an incident involving just a couple of vehicles. Anyway, we're all entitled to our opinions, aren't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He's referring to the fact that it crossed into Mexico [40]. Ryan Vesey 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, the paranoia extended to Mexico? Amazing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the shootout resulted in another death of an officer. Ryan Vesey 23:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In addition to the unique situation, this is also the first time that an unmanned surveillance drone has been authorized for use against a civilian in the US. Obviously not blurb worthy but important to the developing story. --MASEM (t) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One was used in North Dakota. Ryan Vesey 00:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon the capture or death of Dorner, which seems imminent. This isn't just a one-off cop killing, this is a former cop killing other cops on a mission of revenge and has published a manifesto alleging it is due to racism, a major issue in the US. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per The Rambling Man. The job of the police is to engage in such cases anywhere in the world they occur, but there is nothing that sets this apart from the numerous other similar cases in the other countries. It's pretty clear that this is a local news with no impact on anything at all. Importantly, the United States is not one of the countries where this is pretty unusual and rare to warrant its inclusion; shootings on this scale occur at least 2-3 times a year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Three dead is really rather run of the mill, unfortunately, and not to be crass about it. If this were West Virginia I doubt it would be such a big story, and the social media angle is probably blowing this way out of proportion. I am leary of setting a precedent, kill three people, go on twitter get yourself on the front page of wikipedia. That being said I see there is some support here and if there's a lot of interest outside the English speaking world, like with the French Synagog shooter then I could change my mind. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When did death count become a deciding factor? The fact is that this is in the news, period. It doesn't matter how many people have died. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of things are in the news; that is not the criterion. Per the criteria for ITN, we have to make a judgment regarding "the significance of the developments described in the updated content." Neljack (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this has major implications for the LAPD beyond the death count. Dorner's dismissal is being re-investigated. Charges of racism against the LAPD date back beyond Rodney King, and this is shining a spotlight on it once again.[41] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major implications, Muboshgu? This was murder-suicide-by-cop that played out big in the media because it happened in a media town. Dorner's accusations of racism are about as relevant as his support for gun control, Barack Obama, and Chris Cristie, and as rational as his decision to clear his name by killing the children of the man who defended him when he was being fired. Did I say Chris Cristie? Yes. From the madman's manifesto: "Gov. Chris Christie. What can I say? You’re the only person I would like to see in the White House in 2016 other than Hillary." This is not significant. It's tragic and pathetic. Make my soft oppose above a firm one. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorner held the LA area in a great amount of fear, and there is fallout beyond the deaths. His dismissal is being reopened, though I'm sure the police chief just hopes to exonerate the department.[42] I don't care what it says in his manifesto, I haven't read it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's our link to his manifesto. It's worth reading if you want to quote sources like you did about growing support for the deceased. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The title for this nomination is misleading. What is in the news, and thus is the updated content in question, is the shootout, not the murders that have occurred some days ago. So people are saying that a shootout in which one police officer has been killed should be in ITN. Neljack (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update The LAPD says they have Dorner's body.[43] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  With this update, I'd be happy to change my oppose to an RD support for Dorner, but I'm still unchanged as to the full blurb either way. GRAPPLE X 03:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am absolutely 100% in opposition to an RD listing for Dorner. Ryan Vesey 03:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Great news, but we don't post people to RD unless they are important in some field. This guy is like the executed Indian terrorist we just discussed, a nobody. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• He's important in the field of crime. There is no rule that the RD is just for nice people. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Harold Shipman he is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.97.89 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - While Dorner was not your average murderer and did indeed hold the LA region in fear, I don't think this is quite significant enough on an international or even national level. Swarm ^X 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have removed the blurbs as the reports of finding Dorner's body are not true. Feel free to write a new blurb/new blurbs. -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per Mushoshgu. ITN isn't as simple as counting bodies. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article is terribly written. A well written article is hard to do, especially with breaking news. Auchansa (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think there are several aspects of this story which make it far more noteworthy than a simply "cop killer" story people which people have called it. The killer - an ex-cop and military reservist with several medals - has posted a manifesto online, was the subject of the largest manhunt in LAPD history (a manhunt which may still be going on since I don't believe there has been any confirmations of his death), and during the mahunt the LAPD accidentally attacked several citizens who they mistook to be Dorner. When it is all added up I believe this is sufficiently notable for ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Sorry but I am not sure how an article on the person meets WP:BIO1E (probably why it's up for a merge) and also not seeing what the lasting significance of this event is (as per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a newspaper), but then to be objective, the US has a little under 12,000 gun related deaths per year (excluding suicides) so 3 is not that significant for the US however they are caused. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 11:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Swarm. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose International interest - yes, intenational significance - no. Agree with The Rambling Man's summary above. CaptRik (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of us are going to look like fools for not posting this when the inevitable copy-cat crimes start popping up.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why?! Surely main page prominence on Wikipedia will encourage these "inevitable copy-cat crimes" you predict?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Shootings on this scale are not rare in the US. The fact that the criminal was a former police officer does not add any significance to the incident. There will be no lasting impact or encyclopaedic value. Modest Genius ^talk 14:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when we have a good blurb; this is something readers are likely to look for more information about given the amount of news coverage. Whether or not we want news sources to cover this, they are, and readers are likely to be looking for additional, encyclopedic information about it. --Jayron32 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it, it's something that most readers would consider commonplace in the US, yet another stupid shooting of a couple of people and a suicide. It's really, really irrelevant in the big scheme of things given how often we see these tragic stories in the US. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, it's not entirely necessary that you respond to every person who thinks differently than you do. --Jayron32 21:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I count at least ten supports that I haven't responded to, so I guess you're either talking bollocks or you can't count. Retract or look stupid, your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • If by most of our readers you mean yourself, then okay. If by most of our readers you mean most of our readers, you're wrong. Between Christopher Jordan Dorner, Christopher Dorner, and 2013 Southern California shootings the articles have gotten 351,525 views. There is no way you can tell me that our readers consider it commonplace when the interest is that high. Ryan Vesey 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, let's go with page views, of course. Perhaps you can make that part of ITN/R? Sasha Grey has had 3/4 million hits in the past month for nothing at all. Pointless comparison, pointless contribution. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did I ever say that it should be posted due to the number of page views? I said that it shows that readers don't consider this commonplace. If it was commonplace, they wouldn't care enough to be going to the article. Fox and CNN wouldn't have been broadcasting the story nonstop yesterday. The fact that you find it commonplace means absolutely nothing. Ryan Vesey 21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regular (ex)porn star gets same number as page views as this major super manhunt/mega-warrior versus LAPD/biggest manhunt in history/million dollar reward etc etc. It's really flat, he was accused of killing a couple of people, and then went on the run, and just because it became a publicity festival, it shouldn't be ITN. Murders through gun crime and people on the run is commonplace in the US, it's not newsworthy. Why am I not surprised that Fox would sensationalise this rubbish? Have you ever seen television outside the US? Fox is ridiculed, CNN is tape on rotation. Sad you might think otherwise. Not significant outside LA, not significant to the world. Not newsworthy. Not worth ITN. Sorry. A bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, once it is conclusively resolved. Significant enough story for ITN. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support very similar to the DC sniper shooting, which left the Washington D.C area terrorized with fear until the subjects behind those attacks were caught. The same scenario applies here, but with a much bigger metropolitan area being affected. I agree with Bongwarrior that the case, (the finding of human remains) needs to be resolved first, and if the LAPD states the he somehow escaped, it would mean the case is still outgoing. Huge global story here, with significant impact. Secret ^account 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I have tried not to comment on this one, but feel compelled to weigh in on what I find to be sensationalist drama-mongering compared to the other blurbs we have going. Jusdafax 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of that. Let's try to keep this productive and civil. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose. No joking, yet another Tuesday afternoon shooting in the good old US of A? <Yawn> OTOH, it would be notable if there weren't any spree shootings in the US in any given month. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] The contempt is offensive, Confucius. We don't speak of "just another old Chinee run down by a tank" or the like. Show some respect for your fellow editors and humans. μηδείς (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] What a racist comment. How about some respect for the Chinee? We probably don't speak of "just another old Chinee run down by a tank" or the like because the Chinee don't run people down with tanks all that often, certainly not as often as the Mericans get into shootdowns with their guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.97.89 (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] This comment makes me laugh. It boggles my mind how people seem to think Americans go on shooting sprees every week, like these kind of killings don't happen in any other country. Crazy people with guns live in EVERY country. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] The country is run by the NRA, and even unbalanced people can easily get hold of guns. In response to the racist allegations above, the Chinese equivalent to posting this would be wanting to post news of any given civil disturbance or protest in the PRC. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 13:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Exactly right. The NRA has ungodly amounts of power in that country. No wonder there are so many murders like this.--68.101.71.187 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I do think you'll find there are far more frequent in the US than in other developed nations, especially something as minor as this (what, 3 deaths so far). Fgf10 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose, as per Ohconfucius above. Not notable, and we wouldn't even be discussing it if it wasn't in the States. And Medeis' comparison above made me laugh heartily, too silly, thanks, I needed that this morning. Fgf10 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Right, like mass shootings only occur in the US...so mass shootings don't happen in the Netherlands or the UK? How would this be any more or less notable had it not occurred in the US? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes, they do occur, but far less frequently. It would not be notable in any country, as far as I'm concerned. You will note that the original nominator is American, as are the majority of the support votes (as far as one can tell by userpages). Hence me noting that it would probably not have been discussed if it hadn't been in the States. Fgf10 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose as per Neljack above. Unfortunately mass shootings in the US are not uncommon. There have been many in the last six months. Wish they were more rare, but they're not. - Shudde talk 08:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Define "many". If you mean 2 in the last 6 months (other being Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), then that's not "many". Even if you count the 2012 Aurora shooting, 3 mass shootings in a 7-month span in any part of the world is not an everyday occurrence. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Heh, the UK has had three mass shootings in the last 25 years. The US has had three in 1/50th of the time.... Hmmm. Oh, and Category:Mass murder in the Netherlands tells its own story, one mass shooting ever.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] It isn't just another mass shooting; it is a mass shooting by an ex-cop against other cops. That doesn't happen every day, even in the US. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] How does that make it more notable? Fgf10 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose More dead Yankees. Hey, 'Muricans! The world is NOT about YOU.--68.101.71.187 (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Very distasteful, while not particularly notable, people still died. Some degree of respect would be in order. Fgf10 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Respect? Please. The Yanks were the ones who created these insane pro-gun laws ensuring a gun in the hands of every 'Murican no matter how incapable they may be. The only respect they should be get is when they repeal their prized Second Amendment. How many mass killings will it take before that will happen?--68.101.71.187 (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I know the tide of support is against this nomination, but how do we allow comments like the above to stand? WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - The body that was recovered has been identified as Dorner. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I opposed that British manhunt story, and I oppose this one. Besides, it's over now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IOC drops Wrestling

Nominator's comments: IOC removed the sport to add new sport in 2020 olympics --Gfosankar (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This vote was not the final word, as wrestling will now compete with other sports for inclusion in the program. This shouldn't be considered until the final vote. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the Olympics adds and removes events each cycle, I'm not sure why this would be more notable than others in the past. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just an event, but an entire sport. Just a clarification. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because this announcement is yet premature (we might still see Greco Roman wrestling in 2020, depending on the outcome of a different vote.) --hydrox (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per the points made by 331dot and Hydrox. I think the addition of a new sport (hopefully squash!) might make a good story when it occurs. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle Wrestling in the Olympics dates back to ancient Greece and this news really is suprising and sure to cause controversy, but if it is not the final vote then I don't know if it should be put up since the sport argurably stands a far greater chance of making the Olympics than some of the other proposed sports. Sure makes me wonder why they opted to keep the Equestrian events though. --PlasmaTwa2 05:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support just because wrestling is one of he sports taken from the ancient games. Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the final decision on whether this actually happens, and if so which sport replaces it. Modest Genius ^talk 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIw I heard on ABC news with Diane Sawyer last night they just want to decrease the number of events, not replace it. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stories I have read indicates they are removing wrestling from the list of "25 core sports" to allow for the possibility of including a new one. Resolute 20:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, Sawyer's bit was a 15 second throwaway segment I wouldn't have seen anyway if I wasn't waiting for Jeopardy! to come on. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It will now compete with with seven other sports [...] for a place in the 2020 Games" BBC Modest Genius ^talk 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] North Korea nuclear weapons test

Nominator's comments: Little to no earthquake history in this region; probable North Korean nuclear weapons test. Details still sketchy, so will need to wait til information becomes clearer. --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose- This could be a number of things. No one has confirmed it, and KCNA has not acknowledged it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for more information. It most likely is one, as the area the seismic activity was detected has no history of natural earthquakes, but we should wait for an official statement from North Korea or confirmation by other governments. 331dot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (edit conflict)x3 Probable, but not yet confirmed: They just assume it's a test as of right now. No update, either. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters now calling it confirmed in the article linked in the nomination template. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.K. also saying it was a test, [44]. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an act of war contravening multiple UN Resolutions and causing regional military alerts.
• Ready the "oppposes" above are actually waits, the article is now in acceptable more than three referenced paragraph form. μηδείς (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support confirmation from the NK government has just came through. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support International reaction is coming in swiftly. Quotes in a Guardian article from the UN Secretary General, US President, the Kremlin, and UK Foreign Secretary. --Natural R_X 07:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs Expansion for some bizarre reason this article keeps being reverted from full paragraph to list form. So until it is expanded it fails the three full paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Again? Well, were back to at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each with this edit. It looks ready, but any admin posting this should check to make sure it's not reverted to list form in the reaction section or otherwise compromised. μηδείς (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article looks fleshed out, no question on notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article looks good, official announcement made. --IP98 (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's definitely in the news, and there's even a new article about the event in delightful shape. --hydrox (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --Jayron32 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. By now, this is a "routine event". KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is only the third in history. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuclear weapons detonations are also rare events in general. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] Benedict XVI to Abdicate

Nominator's comments: Once the articles are updated with the winner of this award, should be posted per ITN/R. --User:Simfan34

• Strong support after updated. This has last time happened in 1415 with Pope Gregory XII. That is, almost 600 years ago --hydrox (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is HUGE news. Headlines worldwide. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (P.S. whether this is ITN/R or not needn't be a factor here, it's the POPE!)[reply]
• Support Papal resignations are rare, indeed. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 11:20, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
• Question - This should obviously be posted, however the question is when should it be posted. After the article is ready or when the Pope actually resigns? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With breaking news like this, the announcement of resignation is often enough big news and posted as it is announced. This recently happened with abdication announcement of the Dutch queen. Whether this should be posted again after the abdication really takes effect can be discussed then. --hydrox (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, Wikipedia is not a news site. --bender235 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this page is the "in the news" nomination page. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: of course. Abdication is a strange word to use, though. Isn't it a resignation? --MZMcBride (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "resignation" is the correct word accordin to Papal resignation. Thue (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we list only "events" instead of "announcements"? Which means wait until 28 February, i.e. the day when he steps down. --bender235 (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true with most other similar announcements; but this is such a rare event (last time was 1415) that the announcement is notable in this case. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to support or oppose that news. Rare news. One in a millenium. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Let's expedite this one. Jusdafax 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative blurb, but I would go with "resign", rather than "abdicate". Wikinews, the BBC, the Guardian and Reuters (see the sources of the Wikinews page) have all gone with "resign". It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would go with "the papacy", rather than "the papal throne". Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 11:40, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

• Support now or later pending update but not both. New pope is ITN/R and will post per normal. For something like this though, we need a proper minimum update. Should be no problem to find WP:RS to build it out. --IP98 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - obviously world-wise importance. To complicate the abdicate/resign issue a bit further, the official text of the announcement states that the Pope intends to "... renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome...", therefore I suggest blurb changed to Pope Benedict XVI declares he is to renounce his ministry at the end of the month, the first to do so since Pope Gregory XII in 1415.  An optimist on the run! 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is now an official announcement so I posted with that wording which I think is closer to ITN standards. Shii (tock) 11:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be OK to add an internal link to [[Papal resignation|resign the papal throne]]? Also, what about a picture? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If EVER there was a time to post this asap its this.

Also support It is me here's recommendations for a [ic and ;inkLihaas (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia has Papal resignation listed under the article for abdication. Surely if you relinquish the rights to a throne you abdicate, Edward VIII didn't resign he abdicated. I think using the word resign undermines the whole thing, anybody can resign, only a few people can abdicate --Andrew 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the "resignation" of Pope Gregory XII - the last time this happened - not abdication. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It also mentions "abdicating the Papacy" which, as opposed to resignation, doesn't make it sound like he worked at Walmart --Andrew 12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The word abdicate should be definitely used. The pope is elected for life, it's not an office one just resigns from. Resign is just a kind euphemism. Inglok (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Times is using the word abdicate on its front page: http://www.ft.com/home/uk. Inglok (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just considering UK media the BBC, Telegraph, Times, Guardian and Independent all went with "resign". Hut 8.5 13:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CNN: "resign"; ABC: "resign"; The Sydney Morning Herald: "resigns". It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont think that because numerous media sources are promoting shoddy journalism that that's any reason for us to follow suit. A termination of the papal throne, a position for life, is an abdication. --Andrew 14:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times also says "resign". Can you provide sources that are using "abdicate"? 331dot (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Catholic encyclopedia has an article on Papal Abdication [45] --Andrew 14:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But even that article talks about both "papal abdication" and "papal resignation". From the evidence we have seen here so far, it strikes me that most sources use "resign"/"resignation", a minority of sources use both "resignation" and "abdication", but I have not seen you offer any sources which support your viewpoint, which is that "resignation" is not an acceptable term. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. But the accepted term is "resign". And he doesn't occupy a "throne". Y'all are confusing someone who looks like a secular monarch for... a monarch. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Pope does have a throne - see cathedra. Hence he pronounces ex cathedra. 87.115.117.89 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should keep an eye on the newly-created Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and change the blurb to "Pope Benedict XVI [no bolding] (pictured) announces that he will resign [bolding] ..." once it is sufficiently complete. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I might nominate that content fork for deletion as WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment CNN has an opinion saying that "resign" is the correct term because that's the term used in a translation of the Canon Law. I checked the authoritative Latin source and it uses the phrase "muneri| suo renuntiet", 'reject his office'. So not only are they right that "abdicate" is used in the modern times mostly of monarchs (which The Pope is not) and that the original source seems to use a term that is maybe best translated as "resign", most sources are also using "resign" as pointed out above. --hydrox (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already says resign on the main page, and has for a long time. --Jayron32 19:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest update blurb if next Pope is a woman. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] Grammy Award for Record of the Year

Nominator's comments: Once the articles are updated with the winner of this award, should be posted per ITN/R. --331dot (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It went to Gotye and Kimbra for "Somebody That I Used to Know", FWIW. Support will come when Grammys are complete and article is fully updated. --Jayron32 03:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but not only to Record, but also Album, Song, and if possible, New Artist. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting only record of the year, similarly to how we only post biggest award for all other ITN/R ceremonies. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Record of the Year is not the most important Grammy Award. I see no reason to exclude the other two main categories (or at least the Album one), just check the last years:

• Singer Taylor Swift wins Album of the Year for Fearless and rock band Kings of Leon wins Record of the Year for "Use Somebody" at the 52nd Grammy Awards.
• Lady Antebellum wins five Grammy Awards including Record of the Year, while Arcade Fire wins Album of the Year in the 53rd Grammy Awards.
• Adele wins six awards, including Record of the Year and Album of the Year, at the 54th Grammy Awards. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to it and mentioned in blurb section of the template. :) Regards, theTigerKing  10:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind listing such a blurb; I only put Record because that's what's listed on ITNR. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose choice of category: fun. wins the blurb in my opinion. Two of the four top categories. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 10:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main blurb is also factually wrong. Adele didn't win Record or Album of the year. She did that LAST year. I don't know why we're posting results from the 54th Grammys. This was the 55th. Unlike last year, there just wasn't any dominating winner that took home any chunk of the major categories, or indeed won lots of awards. All of the awards were spread out pretty well. Mumford & Sons won Album of the Year for Babel, Gotye feat. Kimbra won Record of the Year for "Somebody That I Used to Know", while fun. won Song of the Year for "We Are Young". The only act that took home more than one of the "Four Majors" was fun., who also took home Best New Artist. So, I'd go with the alt blurb, if anything. --Jayron32 16:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb since its a year out of date. I think we typically post Record of the Year (Gotye & Kimbra) and Album of the Year (Mumford & Sons). No need to mention fun., since they didn't win one of those two. Teemu08 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fixed blurb. --IP98 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Easily most important award in the recording industry. --IP98 (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wake Up people! I am not exactly sure what the rules are for updates when a blurb has three bold targets, but I would assume each needs five lines of prose. And 24 hours after the awards that is not the case for Gotye or Mumford and Sons. Whoever nominated this, and whoever cares, needs to follow up. If we can't find four sentences of comments on each of these wiiners then maybe we should change the blurb to "They held the Grammys and nobody cared." μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Or just adjust the blurb. Prose update in 2013 grammy awards exactly the same as 2012 and 2011 which was posted. --IP98 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to admit "They held the Grammys and nobody cared" would have been catchy. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking ready the article on the Grammy's is sufficiently updated and this is ITNR. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --Jayron32 14:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 66th British Academy Film Awards

Nominator's comments: The winner has been announced and I've updated the article. --JuneGloom Talk 21:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when the ceremony is over with the awards announced.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Breaking news: farts sniffed. My own concerns about the academy's insular nature aside, I don't like the fact that we routinely go for this one and the Oscars, when one is undisputedly the top of its field and one is simply another regional event at the same level of prestige as the Césars or Bodils (which we never consider; though I suspect less for their regional nature and more for their not-being-in-English). GRAPPLE X 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was a little surprised to see this in ITNR also. But its company in the film section is fairly international (one from each of USA, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, and India) so it doesn't seem so out of place. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITNR once the awards are given out and article is updated. If this shouldn't be an ITNR event, that can be discussed on that page. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notability as an awards show that the international film industry does care about. Article however needs some substantial prose. The only section currently in sentences, the lead, is basically a un-bulleted list. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Consensus at ITN/R never established by discussion, and so invalid. One of many second level national awards, linguistic systemic bias to include this over others. Wait until the Oscars. Kevin McE (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little more sympathetic to your position here, as it seems that this has not been on ITNR here nearly as long as the soccer tournament below has been on it; but I still feel that it would be better if you solicited consensus to remove it. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One can support this without (or regardless of) it's having been on ITNR. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Kiril and 311dot. --IP98 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article needs a prose update. Spencer^T♦C 23:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Watched worldwide and covered by media too. Altblurb is fine, I suppose.Regards, theTigerKing  10:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Let's go with the altblurb. Jusdafax 11:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready prose update, no tags. ITN/R might be broken, but it stands for now, and the last two BAFTAs were posted. --IP98 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --Jayron32 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The BAFTAs ended after the African Cup of nations so this should be above and not below. See Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates#BAFTA_above_football --IP98 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note (for others' benefit): As explained in that discussion, the Africa Cup of Nations was placed between the Grammy and BAFTA items to avoid displaying two consecutive blurbs about entertainment awards. —David Levy 00:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Africa Cup of Nations

Nominator's comments: ITN/R 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from ITN/R Kevin McE (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support assuming article is updated to the correct tense throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withholding support until I have some prose about the match to support. Need something to judge, and there's nothing about the actual match itself as of my writing this. --Jayron32 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not top of sport. The FIFA world cup would be the only appropriate football championship to post. --IP98 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, as you know, an invalid oppose, since it's ITN/R. Your only valid opposition would be (a) to remove it from ITN/R or (b) continually object to the quality of the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, as you know, it's common to oppose items on ITN/R --IP98 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing invalid about it at all: ITN/R listing has been overturned on importance grounds here before. ITN/R is not set in stone, and its assumption that something is to be considered important enough to post every time it happens is open to challenge, especially as it was posted there with no demonstrable consensus. Note that even the template says "generally considered important enough": no absolutes, no prohibitions. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely invalid opposition until we disprove or disband ITN/R. Obviously. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, where does this ITN/R nonsense begin or end? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did exactly what you suggested below, got reverted twice. So, do people actually want to argue why a tournament that only 1 of the top 20 teams in the world were eligible for should be regarded as important, or are they just going to hide behind a declaration that has no evidence of any consensus at all? Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Support as ITN/R, but as usual suggest blurb be changed to "Nigeria defeats Burkina Faso..." "... concludes with Nigeria defeating Burkina Faso 1-0..." to avoid the usual ENGVAR issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from ITN/R Kevin McE (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't that also introduce an ENGVAR issue (defeat vs defeats). I believe "X concludes with Y defeating Z" is the neutral wording, isn't it? I don't pay attention as much as I probably should. GRAPPLE X 21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. I wasn't paying attention whilst typing there :) Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, who really cares? Post it however the US want, it won't be a big deal to the BritEng readers, the current blurb is fine, or add an "s", just please, please don't spend hours debating it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there was actually a debate going on! (I've fixed it now anyway). Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Finalists ranked 52nd and 92nd in the world, only 1 team from world top 20 in the tournament, and none higher than 14th: nowhere near the top competitive level of the sport. ITN/R addition made with no discussion, so cannot claim weight of consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid oppose since it's ITN/R. Seek its removal from there. Or prove the update inadequate. (Please note: don't shoot the messenger. Sorry about that. Or remove it from ITN/R in the same manner it was added?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • • • Perfectly valid oppose, it's common to oppose items on ITN/R --IP98 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It's immature to oppose something because the finalists are low-ranked national teams. There is no difference between a higher or a lower-ranked team winning the same crown. Last year we posted 80-something ranked Zambia winning the championship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's irresponsible to claim it is top level if only 1 of the top 20 teams are permitted to be in the tournament. Please present your reason for saying it is important. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is geographically restricted, as it's the African Cup in question and only national teams from this continent are eligible to enter the tournament, so it's pretty lame to say that only one out of 20 is permitted to play on the tournament. Moreover, the FIFA ranking is completely based on mathematical calculations and is viewed with lower regard in the last years. More importantly, FIFA as a governing body of football invests and allocate too much resources in the development of football in Africa. As for the importance of the news, it tops as one of the main sport stories at most of the media portals.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument isn't geographically restricted, the tournament is. Restriction reduces notability. Just as the European Aussie rules championship is geographically restricted, and thus does not have teams of a high enough standard to claim that that event is notable here. Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you would then be in favor of removing other "geographically restricted" tournaments like the AFC Asian Cup or the Copa America? 331dot (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one can be confident that the Copa América will include a reasonable proportion of the highest ranked teams in the world for the foreseeable future. I would indeed support the removal of other geographically restricted tournaments, including the AFC Asian Cup and the CONCACAF Gold Cup, which similarly have none of the top ten teams in the world, and few of the top 20 or 30. Would you favour the inclusion of the OFC championship at ITN/R, which is the logical consequence of your position? Kevin McE (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if we include some continental-based tournaments, we should include them all, or none of them. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing your proposal at WT:ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Conclusion of a continental championship in football is notable enough for inclusion. Note that we always follow a precedence in posting these events and the fact that football is given more importance compared to any other sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other continental championships not included: you'll need a better reason than that. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not included in ITN/R, but posted on the main page. You've apparently misunderstood my point. Please check that we posted the conclusion of the same championship several times before, and we did the same with the conclusion of EURO and the Asian Cup.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has not always been posted, neither has the Asian or Oceanian championships. Simply being a continental championship is insufficient. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITNR. Other continental soccer championships are listed there as well; we should list all of them or none of them as a matter of fairness. If it shouldn't be there, it should be discussed in terms of removing it from ITNR. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from ITN/R Kevin McE (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some are, some aren't. Importance is the issue, not fairness. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness is certainly an issue; one continent should not be treated different than another just because of our judgement that one tournament is less notable than another. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary argument; notability is not related to quality of competition? Shall we post the results of the German Aussie Rules championships, because it is "unfair" for us to judge that it is less notable than the AFL Grand Final? Kevin McE (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciated it. I thought notability was related to level of play. Why is one continental tournament the "top level" and not another? 331dot (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because some continents include many of the top nations in the sport, and others don't. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of a nation in these tournaments is not based on skill, but geography. If nations were assigned to continental tournaments based on skill, you would have a point. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not believe that notability is related to level of play? This is simply biggest fish in small (in footballing terms) geographically defined pool. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that if we are going to post one continental-level tournament, we should post them all and not make judgement calls about them. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have objective criteria for recognising the comparative standards of these competitions, it is not us making a judgement call. Kevin McE (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if the Top 20 teams start coming out of the African tournament and not Europe, you will call for removing the Europe tournament and adding the African one? 331dot (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would. To doubt that is to accuse me of some kind of personal bias, which I resent. Kevin McE (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of personal bias; my point is that it would be better to be consistent instead of constantly reviewing which tournaments are "important" and which aren't, because it can change; or, they should all be removed and just the World Cup should be there. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support notability - I'm surprised this is necessary. It's a continental championship. While maybe the OFC Championship could be argued to be a bit trivial, Africa is a big football-obsessed continent of a billion people. This championship was a big deal in Africa, and indeed elsewhere in the world too. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second rate at best: 52nd beats 92nd. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That it was Nigeria vs. Bukina Faso in the final, rather than the higher-ranked teams that fell in earlier rounds was an upset, yes. This doesn't make it not the premier championship of African football. It's hugely in the news for a billion people, and we're developing a nice article to go with it. If we have a decent article, and we make a special exemption to our rules not to post a story because it relates to Africa, that is damning for us as a community. Think about it. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But no very high ranked teams were knocked out in the earlier rounds. Cote d'Ivoire (14th in FIFA rankings) were highest rated, and are not world leaders in the sport. I resent the implication that my opposition is because it is Africa: it is because it is second rate football. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until we have a link at ITNR showing where this was ever discussed and consensus achieved to add the item to that list. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is removed, all continental championships (really, anything short of the Olympics or World Cup) should be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they probably should. ITN/R, if it should exist at all, should only be for items over which we can be absolutely confident that importance would find consensus every time. Very little argument for importance of this event, and many others at ITN/R, has ever been put forward. (You're not really suggesting that Olympic football is ITNworthy, are you?) Kevin McE (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have said Olympics, only because those get mentioned anyway in a larger context. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This oppose is has nothing to do with the notability of the Cup of Nations. Why should we omit an item for the thousands of people who read the main page until a procedural and technical dispute is resolved to some user's satisfaction on a page 99.99% of readers will not see? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting that it be prohibited, just saying that it should not be waved through without importance being agreed. Does anyone object to the principle that importance should actually be discussed and determined by consensus? This has never been determined. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should not be counted at all since it deals with something not related to the nomination. The last bullet in the tutorial on the top of this page reads "Do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." We really don't need votes that point out to issues that should be resolved elsewhere. Please try to find another reason to oppose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High level of international involvement, big event. GRAPPLE X 22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain consistency of "high level" with absence of 19 of top 20 teams. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the only tournament ranked above this in terms of African football is the World Cup and you know that; please explain why you're badgering editors so relentlessly about this item. GRAPPLE X 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So why is African football necessarily to be shown at ITN? The standard is demonstrably not particularly high. Must we show the Oceania championships (highest eligible team 91st in the world, just behind the 40th European country), because "the only tournament ranked above this in terms of [Oceanian] football is the World Cup"? Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No item is "necessary" and I never claimed as much. I support this item, not demand its posting, because I feel a tournament ranked just below possibly the largest sporting event there is seems quite notable to me, and yes that does mean I would show the same support for an Oceanian equivalent thank you. And as has been pointed out to you, it doesn't matter half a damn what team is ranked where, the event is still just as notable regardless. GRAPPLE X 23:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Amid continuing mindless chicanery, it is ITNR at the time of me typing, which is what counts. Comprehensive update. Formerip (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready The consensus seems to be clear here and the article is in pretty good shape. It's time for marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's not just about the quality of the teams involved in a tournament. It's also about the amount of news coverage. This tournament receives extensive coverage in the international media. Not only is it very big in Africa, there's widespread interest elsewhere. Plus, of course, it's ITN/R (the inappropriate removal without discussion having been reverted), so arguments against its significance are irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the inappropriate addition of it, with no discussion, and therefore no consensus? Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you've posted 22 times in this discussion now. We know what you think. LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article needs a prose update detailing the final match, so I'm removing the ready tag. However, the rest of the article is in good shape. Spencer^T♦C 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a short match report and reactions from the two coaches. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I have given this thought and agree that is not one of the many sporting events that we need to have a blurb for. Jusdafax 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This event gets a fair bit of global coverage, on the BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Today. It is the top sporting event on continent of Africa. It features globally known sportsmen. I am also highly confused as to how this was taken off of ITNR at this moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it is still on ITNR and rightly so. Article is updated. Marking 'ready'--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in ITN/R. European clubs "suffer" when this tournament comes around. Support ... (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE. Since no one noticed my note above, this should go up when and if the prose update is sufficient. Prior practice has been to have a prose summary of the game itself. There's a huge amount of graphics in the middle of the article, then the first prose about the gameplay is "Despite the narrow margin of victory, Nigeria's win was considered a comfortable one, and the outsiders Burkina Faso were described as looking tired." In other words, the earliest text about the game is about the end of the game, and there's still no overall game summary. In all of the debate above and on the ITN talk page where people have tried to one-up each other as to who is more elitist, no one has bothered to actually make sure there's an article worth putting up on the main page from a textual point of view. I'm going to bold this because it is vital for everyone here to read: We need to spend less time worrying about the importance of an event, and more time worrying about the quality of the text of the Wikipedia article. Even if this gets shot down and never makes the main page, the pride in having helped make a really good article should be its own reward. Instead we have this same old tired debate over who's entirely personal opinion of what's important enough for the main page taking up hours of debate. If just one person who claimed, above, to care about Wikipedia's coverage of non-European soccer actually spent the same amount of time fixing up the article rather than debating with people over opinions they have no intention of changing, we'd have an FA quality article about this event. Jayron32 out. <drop mic> <storm off stage>. --Jayron32 02:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron the game summary seems fine. It refers to events in both halves and is referenced. I don't see the problem. I believe it's ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Don't make the article any better. That seems like a good idea. --Jayron32 03:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we should seek to improve all articles, even FAs. The question here is whether the article nominated has a sufficient update at this time and I believe it has.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I thought there was an ITNR discussion that concluded that any reasoning predicated on "top level of the sport" is invalid (or something like that)? –HTD 03:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply if there is, please please please let me know where to find it, I could really use it. --IP98 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My memory is there was a discussion earlier to end the policy of giving ITNR status automatically to the top competition of every 'major sport', and it was in fact agreed to end this rule. After which, Hurling was in fact removed from ITNR. I don't remember it every being ruled that the argument itself is invalid, just that it didn't mean automatic inclusion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. This is a major continental event. Article is updated and looks perfect. ComputerJA (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Added a little more to match summary. Think the article has enough content, see no copyvio problems, and is definitely a notable event - probably Africa's biggest sporting event this year. - Shudde ^talk 09:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Allahabad Stampede

 Regards, theTigerKing  18:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Comment: This year's Kumbh Mela, had been notable, for the unprecedented figures of humanity attending the event and the "Holy Sunday Dip" respectively, in human history ever. Editors please help in making the article look good and up-to wiki standards.Regards, theTigerKing  09:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The sheer number of people at the Kumbh Mela means that it may well have been postable even without this tragedy. Article is however quite fragment at the current time and does not mention the stampede. There does exist an article for the 1954 Kumbh Mela stampede which may be an applicable template. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Y'know what? I'd create the article in the mainspace, rather than go through the articles for review process. I think AfR will be too slow for our purposes here, and having in it the mainspace will mean community editing is more likely to occur. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per LukeSurl, once article is created. -Zanhe (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've moved theTigerKing's AfC submission to the main space. -Zanhe (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (unfortunately) death toll is high. There is also an article, though it should be improved. Egeymi (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs Expansion--the article technically doesn't meet the three paragraph rule--although that should be easily rectifiable. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready: I've expanded the article, doubling the prose. Marking nomination as ready. -Zanhe (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It is covered internationally. Almost 30 million gathered there. So should be considered important news. --Nizil (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --Jayron32 17:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD Zhuang Zedong

Nominator's comments: Instrumental Ping Pong diplomacy Chinese table tennis player has died. --IP98 (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD per TRMs reasoning. --IP98 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article could use a few more references. Spencer^T♦C 17:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. A person with an important role in part of history. LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per reasoning given. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Significant but I'm witholding support until the article quality improves. The referencing is atrocious and the article needs fixing before we can put this on the main page. --Jayron32 18:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attrocius (sic) referencing like attrocius (sic) spelling?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So fixed. --Jayron32 00:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any news with reactions/tributes? The AP story is basically an obituary, there's nothing I can see with which to expand the death section of the article. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• `Support so long as blurb refers to Ping Pong Diplomacy. That's very interesting and suitable material for the ITN section of an encyclopaedia. --RA (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated for RD which doesn't come with a blurb. I would oppose a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Updated Although this article has been expanded by over 1,000 bytes on the death and in references that were previously missing [46] it is most certainly not updated by five sentences of prose in the death section or elsewhere. It looks like another otherwise-supportable death nom that will die on the vine of neglect without further work. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: I've updated the article with more info about his illness and death. Should meet the requirement now. -Zanhe (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: a man who helped change the course of world history. -Zanhe (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support world champion and interesting role in history. I have also marked this ready given Zanhe's additions. μηδείς (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've removed the ready tag, as the article still has an orange level tag that needs to be resolved. The overall level of referencing of the article is WELL below what should be minimally acceptable for main page. --Jayron32 19:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm.... ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Only one section totally lacked references, I have hidden-commented it out and added a note to the talk page. There are no citation needed tags in the rest of the article--and the update is well referenced. So I have removed the page level tag, and am going to remove the unready notice Jayron placed. If specific claims need tagging that should be done per item at the article. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I want this topic posted to RD as much as the next person, moreso even, but this is not the sort of article I would want on the main page. There's very spotty referencing, it isn't one section, it's a complete mess. There's very little in the way of decent references for much of the text of the article. Information about his wife (Hello, BLP) is almost entirely unreferenced, statements regarding supposed records he held and results of his matches is unreferenced. An occasional citation needed tag is one thing, but this article should NOT go on the main page in the state it is in. Again, this person's death should be on the main page RD section. This article is a piece of shit not worthy of recognition on the main page. We need to separate the difference between people notable enough for the main page and articles which would embarrass Wikipedia if they made the main page. If you want, I can tag every problematic statement with a ^{[citation needed]} tag. Experienced editors who are here should recognize them, but I guess I can't assume anything. --Jayron32 21:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice tone. Maybe fix things you have issues with rather than emote all over ITN? Your enthusiasm is commendable but claiming an article to be a "piece of shit" without actually doing anything about it is properly lame. Perhaps take a break, it's clearly getting to you. By all means go over every article featured on the main page today and tag them with {{cn}}'s, that's very helpful. Isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should not use strawman arguments, since I've never claimed that every single item on the main page needs every single statement referenced. Regarding my tone: When I didn't use obscenities, people felt didn't think this article had any major problems. I should not have used the word shit. However, if my using a word like shit makes you believe that the article is a decent article, I am not sure what to say about that. The article doesn't magically become decent because I said "shit". Look, I would like to fix the issues. I don't read chinese or have access to the information. Presumably, someone else does. That doesn't mean I will accept unreferenced, potentially BLP-violating information to go on the main page. Also, I don't oppose articles with one or two cn tags; that's not the issue here. The issue is that THIS article is not of a standard worthy of the main page. The bulk of the text is unreferenced, has been marked with CN tags, notes have been made on the article talk page which itemizes exactly what references are needed and why. I don't know what else to do. --Jayron32 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite why this is the only article on or destined for the main page you feel needs to be tagged throughout in such a manner is curious. But as you said, until you started using the "shit" word, most of us were content to forgo your perceived shortcomings of the article for timeliness. Best bet seems to be to delete all the contentious material with which you've taken umbrage, and leave a semi-stub that can still meet quality requirements and also the "in the news" (i.e. it's still in the news) criteria. Looks like we've missed that though. Hay ho, back to Wikinews, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look, as I stated before to you, this isn't about me. If you feel I have behaved in a way that deserves sanction, WP:ANI is available for you to use. None of that makes the article decent enough for the main page. --Jayron32 21:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't mark this ready, but I am working on the article, and will mark it so when it is. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you Medeis. I've noticed the work you have been doing, and it's fantastic. Thank you for taking the time to see this through. --Jayron32 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Marking read again, tagged material has been referenced or removed diff. (NP, thks, J) μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support Medeis deserves a lot of credit for putting in a Yeoman's effort in bringing this up to snuff. Certainly more credit than I do for merely sitting back and taking shots at it. Well done. --Jayron32 05:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. And while basking in the glow of that praise let me point out that regardless of my opinion of those nominations, Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Allahabad Stampede need minimal work to get them postready, but the people who've nominated (and supported) them have done about diddly to make them compliant. This isn't rocket science, amigos. A google search, four more referenced sentences, and you are there. μηδείς (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd not go as far as making demands of people, everyone has different skills, and if something gets nominated, others are allowed to pitch in where they have the skills. However, I won't stand for being badgered merely because I noted problems with the article. Yeah, I went a bit over the line with my tone above, and I shouldn't have done that, but when someone raises issues with the article, either fix it or be silent on it; shooting the messenger for the message is rarely helpful. --Jayron32 06:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Well, if your skill is nominating things you can't update, you need to practice your updating. μηδείς (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Colombian Earthquake

Nominator's comments: Major earthquake effecting three major South American countries. Being reported worldwide with speculation on the Carnival festivities occurring at the same time. --User:Ravivyas16 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose an earthquake happening on Earth? That's not extraordinary enough. Plus this has a blatant systemic bias towards people on Earth. Think of all the non-Earthlings who could care less. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Thank goodness, but the earthquake caused no deaths, earthquakes are also quite common around the world I dont see how this one differs or stands out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The earthquake had no fatalities, not even major damage. Although 7.0-magnitude is somewhat strong, it just isnt significant enough to be an ITN blurb. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Minimal impact, damage isn't significant.--xanchester (t) 06:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, since it did not lead to major damage.Egeymi (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Nor'easter

Nominator's comments: Major winter storm having wide and significant effects, both in the US and Canada, with high snowfall totals and large number of power outages. Being covered internationally. Open to suggestions on the blurb. --331dot (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose domestic issue with unclear repercussionsLihaas (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objections about an event being in one country (in this case, two)are invalid; over 600,000 power outages, thousands of flights cancelled affecting tens of thousands of people, roads clogged with cars, record snowfall, states of emergency declared, driving bans; these things are not "unclear repercussions". 331dot (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also hurricane force winds and flooding. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When similar disasters happen in China with more than million people being affected, it's usually opposed by the fact it represents only a small portion of the total population. I would rather use the same rationale here. The figures you mention as relevant are simply niche compared to the total population in the affected region.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support listing such disasters in China; even if I didn't, this storm has shut down a good chunk of the US and is affecting tens of millions, not just a small part of the population. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfall is also at record levels, 30 inches and up for a wide area. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the highest ever snow cover is something that was adduced in most of the news covering the storm. But still we need to wait for a while and then agree on the severity of the hit. It's surely induced some damages so far, but it might not end here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• wait we can't post this on the prestorm hype--we'll see today how serious it really is. μηδείς (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• wait per Medeis. We've posted other extreme weather events: heat waves in russia, snow storms in europe, tornado outbreaks, etc. 311dot raises several good points, but we should wait until the storm passes. --IP98 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1000's of cancelled flights, 100's of thousands without power. The article is a mess! --IP98 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support storm has moved away from heavily populated areas, and the impacts are clear enough. The article is in much better condition already than many posted routinely. With 40 million people impacted by the storm, it is quite newsworthy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article reports five car crashes and one heart attack attributed to the storm (by the way it's been named Nemo and the blurb should de changed). The snowfall was heavy, but NE has had three storms like this out of the last four years--it's an expected event. I don't think we reported the recent 6 foot snowfall in Moscow. I am open to changing if there's more news. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb should not mention "Nemo", as that is a name applied by The Weather Channel for its own purposes and not an impartial government agency(as hurricane names are); the National Weather Center has specifically said they will not use it, as have some news outlets. This isn't just "heavy" snow, it is record setting snowfall upwards of two and a half feet. I live in the Northeast US and we do not "expect" these types of storms. They are rare occurrences; the last one of this scale was in 1978. I assume you are lumping in the recent hurricanes, but those are entirely different events. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of a 6 foot snowfall in Moscow; I would have supported that as well. As IP98 stated, we have posted other extreme weather events, such as heat waves and tornadoes. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, had glanced at the Nemo story, assumed it was government-assigned. I live in NY, my family north of Boston--they are out sledding. I am frankly disappointed when we don't get a storm like this at least once a year. In any case the impact seems mostly to have been political gaffes and a fascist overreaction by certain executives waving their orders around. Car accidents and heart attacks in 80 year-olds happen even when it doesn't snow. To see a nor'easter I could support, compare the John Lindsay Storm with dozens of deaths in NYC alone. (here's a link to the "Russian Snow-nami"--turns out Moscow only got ten inches while others got 10 feet.) μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I got more than a foot of snow outside my house but i really dont think thats worth posting on ITN... Its a winter storm in winter. -- Ashish-g55 19:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you got just a foot, but millions of people got twice, and in some cases, three times that, breaking all-time snowfall records- along with millions who had no power. This isn't some one-off mildly heavy snowfall for a few people or everyone, it has wide-reaching effects and is going to take a long time to deal with. Is the only ticket onto ITN to have large numbers of casualties? I agree that's important, but that leaves out many notable things- and if that's the case, it should be listed as a criteria on this page. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to remember those all-time snow records are for specific towns. Weather records are set every year for the highest or lowest temperature or greatest rainfall or whatever in Poughkeepsie or Piscataway. This is nowhere near the biggest storm ever. I'd concentrate on getting more sourced notable facts into the article, if it turns out 100 disappeared from a hotel on the Maine coast or something else Steven Kingish or Katrina-like this will get support. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that the fact that Portland, Maine smashed their snowfall record(among other places) is notable for ITN, but it is representative of the fact that snowfalls of this scale are rare events; I thought that's what went up on ITN. I guess I just feel that something that affects tens of millions of people, something which caused two state governors to ban any and all road traffic from their highways, etc., is notable; people like to read about events other than those that have large numbers of casualties or deaths. I'm going to back away for a bit now- this will either get posted, or not. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with it is that its just a winter storm in winter. Nothing significant but snow came out of this. Most major cities get more than this almost every year. I dont think any records were broken for major cities including Toronto, New york, Chicago etc. -- Ashish-g55 21:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time, a winter storm affecting power networks is routine, car crashes as a result of snow on roads is also what is to be expected. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Oppose A standard weather phenomenon is not encyclopedic news. --hydrox (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC) ed Seems like it's somewhat unusual weather in this region after all. However, the amount of disturbance to lives of tens of millions of anglophones kinda makes it notable enough for en-wiki.. --hydrox (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three feet of snow over a significant area is not "standard" by any definition I'm aware of. OK, I'm really going away now. :) 331dot (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know how much is that in scientific units, but news sources are talking about a meter. A meter of snow is not a dramatic winter weather, though you seem to be correct that it's somewhat unusual in this particular region (NYT says about once every 10 years). Google for record U.S. snowfalls makes 1 meter (39 inhc) seem nothing unusual. --hydrox (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps where you live 3 feet is not rare. But in the United States, more specifically New England, there have only been a handful of snowstorms to produce that much snow, especially in a 24 hour period. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The casualty rate doesn't seem to be significant enough for posting. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My oppose still stands, maybe it's an aspect of having grown up with insane amounts of snow. I won't be upset if this ends up being posted, as it is undoubtedly "in the news", but it might be the most overhyped storm ever. Ryan Vesey 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that thick-headed? Many locations in Connecticut picked up over 3 feet of snow! Boston received a storm surge of 4.2' feet (4th highest ever observed) and a snowfall total of 24.9" (5th highest ever observed). Portland, ME broke it's all-time snowfall record with 31.9" and a countless number of other cities across the region experienced their top 5 snowfall. Over half a million people were left, and are still left, without power, and thousands upon thousands of airline flights were cancelled. Several states were basically shut down for the duration of this system. NOTHING about this storm, NOT ONE ASPECT, was overhyped. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, you can take your personal attacks elsewhere. Ryan Vesey 01:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was probably unnecessary, I struck it out if that makes it any better, lol. But in all seriousness, nothing about this storm was overhyped and to say so is completely off-base. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose As a Massachusetts resident (who luckily happens to be in Maryland while all that snow fell), I can say from experience that this is nothing new. We get at least 1-2 industrial-strength snowstorms every year, amongst the 3-5 normal snowstorms we get on average. Sometimes even in October. This is a classic example of the media needing some kind of major story to run in order to get people to watch. Way overhyped. Those from the New England area will know that snowstorms like this are nothing new. Now if 4+ feet of snow had fallen, that's different, but we annually get a big snowstorm that drops down a foot or so of snow every year. It's to be expected. Changing to Support, as we have posted lesser storms in the past, like this one. I still don't think it has caused enough impact, but the line of what is ITN-worthy for snowstorms in general is entirely left up to interpretation, and my opinion may be biased due to the fact that I've lived through lots of big snowstorms like these. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That supposedly "lesser" snowstorm resulted in 39 fatalities. I would support that being posted, but not this in the absence of a significantly higher death toll. Neljack (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support w/ Comments - Are you guys being serious right now? The storm has plunged hundreds of thousands into cold and darkness, caused innumerable traffic accidents, cost state and local governments millions, stranded hundreds or thousands of drivers, destroyed what will probably be hundreds of millions of dollars in property, forced the evacuation or rescue of scores of residents, led to the cancellation of thousands of airline flights, caused uncountable millions in lost business revenues, pretty much brought most of the Northeast to a standstill even while parts of that region still struggle to cope with the aftermath of Sandy, who butchered the area just over three months ago, produced some of the largest observed storm surge values in history in many cities across the Northeast (most notably Boston at 4.21'), and dumped some of the highest snowfall totals ever recorded across many major cities, and you guys are worried about it not having a high enough fatality number? Completely absurd! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowstorms happen in the Winter. New England residents expect it and are well prepared for it. Sometimes power is lost if the storm is really bad, but overall life carries on. I grew up watching as historic snowfalls occur, and the impact is relatively minor compared to the likes of Sandy (which did not affect these areas as much as it did in the Mid-Atlantic states). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and hurricanes happen in the Summer. That does not mean they're not newsworthy. This system will go down as one of the worst in recorded history for many, many cities across New England, despite whether or not residents were prepared and regardless of how much impact you personally experienced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • • You can post reliable sources that say the worst in recorded history, and where; the storm is by no means the worst; and we would not post a hurricane that caused a heart attack and half-a-dozen car accidents. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll support it then, seeing as how we have posted lesser snowstorms in the past. I still don't believe it's all that much of a big deal, but maybe I've just been through too many nor'easters to notice the impact. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Historic blizzard, wide ranging impacts, much per TropicalAnalistwx13. --Ks5stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 22:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per WP:SNOW, obviously. Formerip (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not obvious at all. This was one of the worst blizzards in reliable New England history. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke oppose, he supported above. Ryan Vesey 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is his joke oppose, does that mean his support has an invisibility cloak? μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, I had him confused with IP98. It still appears to be a joke oppose though. Ryan Vesey 03:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Historic Blizzard per above last one was 8 years ago, also may I remind that the storm has not Dissipated yet nor has damage estimates come in yet as it is the death count has risen by at least 3 since this was first posted here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "Historic" ? where is the evidence that this current event will have "importance in or influence on history." ? (removing from lead). LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Blizzard has already broken tons of records some as long as 100 years old, that and the far reaching impacts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Huge storm with impacts for millions. Death toll growing. Dominating story in the news cycle in numerous venues. I think this is a good ITN blurb that leads to a good article that many Wikipedia readers will appreciate reading. I am unimpressed by the opposes. Jusdafax 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are unimpressed by the opposes but I could say I am unimpressed by the supports; It may well be dominating the news cycle in the affected areas, but outside of those areas it just gets a brief mention if any at all, in the overall scheme of winter weather it is not actually very significant at the moment lots of other places have got more than average snow this winter, most of Europe did at the start of January, Moscow for example is looking at its coldest winter in 20 years (see here). The current version of the article is full of those annoying yellow "This section requires expansion." and {{citation needed}} which as it stands would stop it's posting anyway. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I life here and not even a meter of snow. 14 casualties is actually not that high even for this part of the world. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you live? I'm not sure looking out your window is an adequate assessment of the storms impact over such a large area. --IP98 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I get that it an unusual weather event that has caused lots of disruption, but if we posted all of them - as opposed to those that cause lots of deaths - ITN would be full of them. There are too many disasters to post those that are just disruptive, without being particularly deadly (save in exceptional circumstances). This, like most highly disruptive but not very deadly weather events, dominates the news where it is occurring but is not a particularly big story internationally. Neljack (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the front page of the BBC's page, as well as Le Monde, Xinhua, as well as the other sources listed in the nom; clearly it is a big international story. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support based on the prominence in news sources and the quality of the article. --Jayron32 02:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A forecasted blizzard New England in the winter months, with no major death toll? Nope. Sandy's one thing - a late season hurricane that far north is unusual, but snowfall in Feb. in the NE US is not. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three feet over such a wide area is unusual, especially in Long Island and southern New England, but really everywhere. The last storm of this scale was in 1978. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection We supposedly have 14 casualties, mostly from car crashes, two or three from heart attacks, and two carbon monoxide poisonings. In the area that was affected by snow, how many car crashes, heart attacks during yard work, and carbon monoxide poisonings would there have been regardless of the storm? This is not people crushed by earthquakes, drowned in storm surges, impaled by flying tornado debris, or killed in any way directly attributable to the storm. Not a single death. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One CO poisoning was a child in a car where snow was blocking the tailpipe; the car crashes were due to the poor weather conditions which wouldn't have been there at that moment if not for this storm. The deaths aren't the only notable aspect of this. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it is beyond obvious that this is a significant event, the worst storm to hit the region since at least 1978. It is front page news thoughout the United States. The oppose votes have no merit or logic other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I request that an admin immediately mark this for listing, and that we move on to the next story. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also front page or close to it news around the world. This isn't the page to suggest entries for the "injury, death, and destruction box" of the main page, it's the "in the news" box and this is in the news in most of the world; while injury and deaths are an indicator of scale and importance of an event; it's not the only criterion. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should the blurb read nor'easter rather than blizzard? Ryan Vesey 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put that as an alt blurb. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is dumbfounding. This story seems to be making headlines around the world -- it is most certainly in the news -- but the objections to posting this are...
  • It's hype. It is not our problem to decide that things that are in the news should not be. And I'd hardly call a storm that dumps more than two feet of snow in major cities, causing the disruption that has occurred, "hype". Oh, but to some people, travel disruption does not a story make:
  • Not enough people died. This is a blizzard, not an earthquake. Escaping death from a snowstorm predictable days in advance is not challenging for able-bodied people, so long as they're not venturing on the roads -- something that would be unlikely to occur, considering driving was banned on all Connecticut and Massachusetts roads for the first time since 1978. (Oh, but that's not significant, because we need people to die in order for events to be significant.) Note that the North American blizzard of 2003, ranking third-highest on the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, was directly responsible for only two deaths. The scale and impact of snowstorms should primarily be measured by other factors.
  • Not even a meter of snow fell. You can't be serious. A bit of context would be nice. Not everyone lives in Scandinavia or northern Canada or Siberia; the amount of snow seen in parts of New England during this storm is unusual in the vast majority of the world. And we're not even talking about three inches in Los Angeles; we're talking about a once-in-a-decade storm for a region that is used to seeing a significant amount of snow each winter. That you or your neighbors would say/are saying 'ho hum' to this type of storm doesn't change that fact that for the area affected this is a major storm.
  • During winter, it snows. I don't even know how to respond to this.
  • If this happened in China, we wouldn't post it. This is the classic ITN oppose rationale, and it is unsubstantiated by what actually transpires here. Our desire to counter systematic bias (which should not be in ITN's mission, mind you) goes so far that it creates counter-systematic bias. I'd venture to guess that we'd actually be much more willing to post this if it occurred in China, because we couldn't make the claim that this is only getting press because it's in an Anglophone country. Note, for example, in the Solomon Islands earthquake nomination below, we had people saying that it would have been posted [faster] if the area struck were somewhere closer to the U.S. and Europe. Surely, if this had occurred there, we'd get people opposing because if it had occurred in the South Pacific, we'd never post it.

Honestly, folks. I don't understand what's so difficult about this. While this may not be the biggest story in the world right now, this is making news in many sources around the world. This is something people will be looking for, and the article on this event is shaping up to be quite decent. Whether you believe the media is wrong to cover it is irrelevant. Whether you live in a place that sees three feet of snow every hour (congratulations) is irrelevant. The minimum death threshold in your mind is irrelevant. This is a story that's in the news that many of our readers will be interested in. Case closed. This should be posted. -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for ITN are "the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content". They do not say that anything that gets sufficient news attention must be posted. Rather we have to make a judgment of the significance of an event. The extent of news coverage can be evidence of that, but only evidence; it's not conclusive. We are entitled to decide that this is over-hyped. There are lots of things that are top international stories, but are considered too ephemeral or otherwise insignificant to post here. For instance, Gen. Allen's comments about ISAF being on the road to victory in Afghanistan are above this storm on the BBC News main page, but would never get posted here because we rightly judge that comments or speeches by public figures, however prominently they may be featured in the media, are generally too ephemeral and insignificant to be posted. The media also suffers from systemic bias. You may not think we should worry about systemic bias, but Wikipedia has recognised that it needs to be combated. Thus we are not free to disregard this bias, and cannot just rely on the media given its prevalence there. Neljack (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but our judgment call should be based on what readers are likely to be looking for information on. They are unlikely to go on Wikipedia, either now or ever, to find what Gen. Allen said about the ISAF. They are, however, likely to come here to find information on this storm (and that will likely continue to be the case into the future). And if you read WP:CSB, you'll see the "countering systemic bias" concept is intended to address gaps in our article coverage, not insist that Main Page sections (especially one titled "In the news") post or not post items because we have too many or not enough articles from specific regions. -- tariqabjotu 03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your reply above hot soups comment --IP98 (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you insist on running this discussion under Hot Soups ready note? I thought it was an honest mistake (ctrl-end + comment + click save). Sorry, I'm not very smart... --IP98 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq, can you show one single source that rates this storm on the "Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale"? One? Every blizzard has its area of maximum impact--but this is not a 24" storm in the entire NE. There are plenty of blizzards in which trees fall through houses, people freeze in their cars and houses. Not Here. You simply claim opposes are in bad faith or especially not based on IDON'TLIKEIT. This is a big storm but tomorrow the LAPD sniper or something will be on the front page. If this still is we can post it then. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because storms are assessed on the scale well after the event, based on the population affected and snow totals. That's how the scale works. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say counting the areas effected, the number of deaths, and the amount of snow produced this more than qualifies, plus the storm had not faded out yet so its not over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, I am not responding to you anymore as you insist on adhering to poor discussion etiquette, posting in the wrong place (and objecting when someone politely corrects you) and adding substantial information to a comment even after the addressee has responded to it. Take my comment as you like. I know you don't agree, and this looks likely to be posted without your consent. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consent? I am fairly sure you could have posted this yourself, and I would not have complained. You cannot fault me for asking you for a source regarding the very criterion you chose to give. And I certainly don't apologize for getting pissed of at 98 for causing me three edit conflicts losing my posts twice with his pointless gamesmanship. A ready marking is not some part of a thread whose relative position matters. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a closed topic now, but "Gamesmanship"? I tried to correct what I saw was an honest mistake. You were replying to a thread below a different thread. Then you posted some angry caps lock comments, but I've no idea why. Heres a simple edit conflict resolution trick: before clicking save, copy your text to the clipboard. It's Ctrl-C on windows and PC GNU/Linux, and I'm sure Mac has some shortcut or other for it. --IP98 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking as ready. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready - see WP:ITN#Updated content "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link.", it still has issues. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 04:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dey gone now. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was unsure earlier, but I've been looking at Medeis' statements in opposition, and I can't find a justification for anything he says and I can't find anything to refute the statements of Tariqabjotu or Tropicalanaylist. Ryan Vesey 03:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for the spirited discussion. Keep in mind that severity of a storm isn't just to total snow or the total deaths. This storm had high winds, up to 90 mph, and snow fell at an incredible rate. In parts of CT it was 4" - 5" per hour. 1" per hour is heavy snow. Bridgeport CT had 30" of snow; the previous record was 17" something like 100 years ago. Tonight temperatures will fall to single digits Fahrenheit. For the hundreds of thousands of snowbound people who still have no power or heat, it is an incredibly miserable experience. We can do our small part by providing a concise summary of all the facts in one convenient place. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My initial impulse was to oppose on the basis that snow in the Northeastern US isn't newsworthy, but this blizzard meets the criteria. There's too many subjective opposes in this discussion, enough to convince me to support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is pretty much the center of attention for all media sources out there. There is a death toll, and this storm wasn't your average snow flurry. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just not true. It's not on the top section of the BBC News website or the Xinhua website, and only merits a minor story on the world page of The Guardian website. Neljack (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you goto (BBC's Front page and scroll down there it is under "Video" When you goto Xinhua's website there is a section for it under "World" as the top article. need I say more? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I resolved the orange expansion notice for Canada (the storm is still affecting that area), and the similar notice for the meteorological history is basically just to copy information from the lead...which appears to be happening at the moment. The current semi-lack of full meteorological history doesn't compromise the article, since it's in the lead. Other than that, just general notability strongly suggests that this should be an ITN item. (Edit: And the second orange-flagged expansion noticed is fixed now as well.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting Article tags have been resolved; consensus to post has emerged by the end of this discussion. Spencer^T♦C 04:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb The current blurb can be shortened quite a bit to "A blizzard (satellite image pictured) disrupts transportation and electricity to hundreds of thousands in the Northeastern United States and parts of Canada" without losing any of the current information. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Tariq really said it all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afzal Guru

Nominator's comments: The Indian parliament, attacks main convict was hanged earlier today in the morning. Kashmir is on the edge. Curfew has been imposed in ten districts. Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir monitoring law and order situation of the valley- Kashmir. India-Pakistan relations were on a boil following the attacks. The event is being featured in major publications and is trending in Google News [US, UK, Austrlia]. The location of the attacks, the aftermath of the attacks should be considered in totality before forming an opinion on the ITN candidacy. I don't think that "the culmination of a judicial process" makes any "execution" ITNC unworthy. Regards, theTigerKing  03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Regards, theTigerKing  03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He confessed. We simply don't do executions of confessed murderers. Neither would we even list this as a recent death ticker. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was the mastermind/plotter of the Indian Parliament attacks. And since when, "executions of confessed murderers" are not considered for ITN?Regards, theTigerKing  04:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might change this to "The execution of Afzal Guru for his role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack sparks riots (or a curfew, or whatever)" and give support for that if you want this posted. But no, we don't normally post executions, and even those of people who proclaim their innocence aren't usually posted. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability lies in the attacks on the Parliament of India and not on preventive steps taken to maintain law and order situation.Regards, theTigerKing  07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks on the Parliament were 11 years ago: they cannot be claimed as the main story of what is in the news now. Enactment of court decision is routine. Oppose, review if protests have a major impact. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal Kasab was convicted for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. That was in November 2008. The event featured in ITN. The Supreme Court of India upheld his death sentence. A blurb was nominated at that time which related his sentencing with the attacks. The consensus was to put it on hold until executed. He was executed in December 2012 and this featured in ITN. What made it notable was the causalities reported from 50+nations. Was there a fallout because of his hanging? The answer is unequivocal No! Neither there were any protests nor did the hanging have any impact. Now, lets cut short to this nomination. It does not intend to nominate the event which happened in the past. So the question is what makes this execution notable? The answer is that the attacks were on the very foundation of a democracy- The Parliament of India. Hence, the execution was covered by the global media. The execution of Dhananjoy_Chatterjee would not have made it to ITN. This is what I personally believe. Just a case by case approach is needed. [Or it could be the posting of Ajmal Kasab in ITN has set a bad precedent.]Regards, theTigerKing  14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I opposed that as well, for the same reason. (And it was November, not December) Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The matter has been covered by many international press, and being a "high profile" case which has been connected to "National security of India" this news deserves a place in ITN. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Medeis, this is the culmination of a judicial processes for a confessed murderer, not ITN worthy. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 07:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. The notable thing would have been this man's sentencing or conclusion of his trial, and additionally the attack was over ten years ago. I'm weak opposing this because the execution does seem to be widely covered, and I would reconsider my opinion if any protests get out of hand or are very widespread. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb and RD per ITN/DC #1 and #2. Maybe a blurb under ITN/DC #3 if there are significant protests. BTW: some which were not posted include "John Allen Muhammad" and "Minsk Metro bombing convicts". --IP98 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal Kasab was recently posted. BTW- JAM and Minsk Metro werent executedLihaas (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. Muhammad was executed. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So were the minsk bombers --IP98 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And both were nominated to ITN/C and didn't pass. Not saying two wrongs make a right, just FYI. --IP98 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support: He was convicted of being part of a terrorist attack against the parliament of the largest democracy, and of waging war against the country. It was not a simple murder convict. Huge fallout as well. There is a curfew imposed across Jammu and Kashmir. Local private channels have been suspended. Home Ministry has refused to release the body to the family to avoid a funeral procession spectacle. State security forces have been fully deployed. Separatist groups have called for a four-day mourning. Extremely notable execution, IMO. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability here is entirely parasitic on the criminal act, which occurred 12 years ago. We don't treat sentences themselves as notable. (John Smith is serving 30 years... would not make ITN.) Other than a nice opportunity for cheering it, the execution of this man who admitted guilt is simply not encyclopedic level news. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a matter to be cheered. But this execution is similar to that of Kasab (which we posted) and this has received significant international news coverage (national news channels have almost not shown anything else since the Home Ministry announcement yesterday). There has been significant fallout to the execution as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose Unless there ends up being major fallout afterward (protests, etc.) Spencer^T♦C 18:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose for blurb, strong support for RD ticker. Unless there are major protests, this event just isn't notable enough for a blurb.--xanchester (t) 07:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD inclusion

• Support This had been proposed as a ITN blurb story around the execution, which I opposed. We have not established a system for counter-proposals, and this subsection is probably not ideal, but there seems to be some support above for RD inclusion above (Xanchester at least) so it merits discussion apart from the story. Notoriety of individual makes his death worth putting in RD, it is not intended to be only about obituaries of the honourable. Kevin McE (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's a recent death of a notable person; the fact that it is a dishonorable person is not relevant. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RD because in this case it's the act of execution that's news, not the act of dying. It seems the same, but hanging != stroke. The protests were limited, with few injuries and no deaths. FWIW I honestly don't think RD is the right tool for the job for an execution, and that any one would need to get a blurb under ITN/DC #3. --IP98 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed you from my note at the beginning of the subsection: hope I hadn't misrepresented you there. Nevertheless, I would argue that he meets DC 2: he is internationally regarded as a very important figure in terrorism. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I actually felt kind of bad for having to contradict you. Honestly, if the article had a paragraph or two explaining how he qualifies for DC #2, I would change to support. --IP98 (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose RD As per the last segment of the last line of Kevin. An RD would give the subject a "celebrity status" in the eyes of many (especially me). Its the only reason why I nominated it for blurb only.Regards, theTigerKing  15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RD He's not the top of any field and his notability is entirely parasitic to the crime--he's literally a nobody. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Liberty Leading the People

 --Bouchecl (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Apparently it's believed the marker damage will be easily cleaned, and giving this front page coverage would be undue weight the nutjob doesn't deserve. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, we're way past the point where there will be no coverage of this. All the news that fits to print? Bouchecl (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure I get your point, and it's one of my favorite paintings, but apparently easily reparable damage just isn't notable. If you find a source that says it isn't expected to be reparable do post it--it would easily be supportable on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Medeis here. If it is indeed reversible then the encyclopaedic significance is low. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That said, visual art gets very few postings here, could be some good variety. Is there an available English-language source which details the extent of the damage? LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent covers it. Bouchecl (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Notable works of art being vandalized in museums is a rare event, though it currently appears the painting was not permanently damaged. Though I do support this, I can understand its not being posted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A notable and iconic painting, wide news coverage, a very nice free image, and the article is in good shape.128.214.79.74 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is in quite a good shape, and this is certainly covered by news sources currently. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be displayed on the main page. --Jayron32 15:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes it's a good article and yes it's a nice image, and yes the painting's something that would be great for the front page. But it's still being reported the damagi will easily be fixed--so the actual news is "28 year old lunatic's marker scrawl will be erased". If we want to change ITN into a second FA ticker that would be fine with me, I'd rather not see articles about soccer matches and bus crashes, and only articles about fine art and scientific exploration and archaeological discoveries. Barring that perhaps we can see what's needed to get the article to good article status (I have never worked on that myself) and put it as a featured article? μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is simply lack of art stories in the ITN and this one appears to fit properly. We don't need to contest the issue of whether it's a world-known painting or not since the notability depends purely on the act of vandalism that has occurred. It's definitely not The Night Watch, Mona Lisa or Girl with a Pearl Earring, but Delacroix is surely famous that one of his foremost works should be considered as worth artistic piece. The fact its damage receives echo on a certain level through the media surely gives another plus to its notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The article is in a good state and the update is adequate. --RJFF (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a single act of vandalism, which according to The Independent will not be lasting. The article itself currently says it took less than 2 hours to remove "without damaging the original paint"{{cn}} and the painting was back on view the next day. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 23:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Lack of art stories" isn't a sufficient reason to post this one. As the damage isn't permanent, then I'm not seeing the significance. This isn't like the theft or record sale price for a painting. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not permanent damage. Doesn't matter how famous the piece is (aka mona lisa). If the perpetrator had to defeat some sort of security mechanism to do it (ie bullet proof plexiglass case) then maybe. Agree that is sucks this happened, glad it was restored. --IP98 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I would support if the vandalism was permanent. But since it's easily fixed, the historic impact of the event is minimal. ITN does need more art stories, but this isn't one.--xanchester (t) 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Azerbaijan's satellite launch

Nominator's comments: The nation's first satellite launch, which was reported to be successful. --Brandmeister^talk 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to the article it was built by an American company and launched by a French Ariane rocket from French Guyana. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this is posted, the blurb should be reworded to make clear the information Medeis points out. The current wording suggests that it was either launched from Azerbaijan or constructed there(or both).331dot (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Brandmeister^talk 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, contracting with Ariane is not newsworthy. Note the near complete lack of media coverage. Abductive (reasoning) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Any notability of it being their first satellite is cancelled out by the fact that it was launched by the French and built by Americans; they paid someone to build and launch a satellite. If it was either built by them or launched from their territory, it would be ITN worthy, but not as it is now. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Chibombo bus crash

I'm sure this won't fly because it's Africa and there's a perception that multiple deaths in an accident is the norm, but a single collision between a bus and lorry has killed over 50 people. I imagine an article is worthy of creation for such a disaster. Worth a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to support this, but I guess not given you point out it's Africa. Good catch. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not because it's Africa, but because it's just a traffic accident. It's tragic with a high death toll, but that's all. I had considered nominating this one but I thought we were over traffic accidents here and decided not to. --IP98 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that was 7 people, this is at least 53... odd comparison. Two vehicles collide and kill at least 53 people. You think your link is of any comparative use? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, could you please help me find WP:ITN/MinimumDeaths, I still haven't been able to find it. Surely it must exist. --IP98 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this since it's a high death toll for an accident of sort... even though it's Africa.--WaltCip (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is genuinely large and significant public transport disaster. The death toll is particularly noteworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per IP98; unless it was more than an accident (like a deliberate action or act of terrorism) the death toll isn't high enough IMO to list in ITN; I would support it if it was closer to triple digits. Also not seeing it being widely reported yet. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, if 53 people were killed in a bus/lorry crash in downtown Manhattan or in London or in Paris or in Toronto or in Madrid, this wouldn't even being debated, would it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel the same way if it was in Manhattan, London, Beijing, Johannesburg, the Moon, Mars, the Andromeda Galaxy, or even across the street from me......the location is irrelevant to me. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for your clarification but I'm afraid I doubt it in the extreme. And if a bus/lorry crash occurred on the Moon and you didn't consider it sufficient for ITN, you'd be a liar. Anyway, if an aircraft crashed killing 50 people, in an "accident", not a "deliberate action or act of terrorism", you'd be in favour of posting it. Wouldn't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my sarcasm but I was just trying to make the point that the location wasn't relevant in my opinion of this event. I still wouldn't be sure about an aircraft accident killing 50, although aircraft accidents are much rarer than traffic accidents. I opposed a recent plane crash that killed only 8 or so due to the low death toll. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so a traffic accident involving just two vehicles which has killed over 50 people doesn't make your "notability" bar? Man alive, you live a whole different world from me... I'm glad I live where I live. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable, but it was my understanding that ITN had a global reach, and I don't think (regrettably) that the deaths of 50 people have much influence in a world of 7 billion people. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you have other examples of a two-vehicle crash which killed over 50 people? The population of the world is entirely irrelevant, of course, and maybe I now understand why your oppose is irrelevant because that kind of logic makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is here to solicit opinions; I gave mine. Feel free to disagree; but my opinion is no less valid than yours and if yours is considered mine needs to be as well. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Deutsche Welle, NBC, Irish Independent... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 331dot, I'm not sure how many people you think can fit on a bus. -- tariqabjotu 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are referencing. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I would support it if it was closer to triple digits". Unless people are standing, the capacities of most (single-decker) buses is about 55, and the capacity of a truck is two or three. So, there's no way this would have been triple digits. -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic accidents can involve more than two vehicles, or pedestrians. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. This involved two vehicles. Hence the notability for the substantial death toll. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, a truck hit a bus. 49 people on the bus died, 2 in the truck died. How is this not a tragic traffic accident? Will bus design change world wide? Will the bus or truck manufacturer be sued? Will the UN commission on bus safety issue an international arrest warrant for the operating company president, with that person being tried at the Hague? "ence the notability for the substantial death toll." 100's of thousands of people killed by a tsunami is a substantial death toll, this is a traffic accident. Come on. --IP98 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support 53 deaths isn't "just a traffic accident" a few deaths is just a traffic accident. 53 deaths is a regional tragedy at a very minimum. That said, I'm assuming we'll be linking bus and lorry collide. If we don't, we should include a wikilink to lorry since many of us wouldn't know what that meant. Even still, both the term "lorry" and "truck" seem ambiguous in terms of size, especially since the first image used in the article is this one. Once we find out what type of truck it was, we should update it to say semi-truck (or tractor trailer, take your pick), pickup-truck, dump-truck, or whatever it turns out to be. Ryan Vesey 21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an ENGVAR issue, and I don't think 'lorry' is a problem. I notice that all but one of your proposed alternatives incorporates 'truck'. That said, the terminology is much less important than the story itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would the term be in Zambia? It is an English-speaking country, we should use whichever term is used there. Can we find a Zambian news source? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a story in the Lusaka Times. They use "truck" so I've changed the blurb to that. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've begun the article at Lusaka bus crash, should it be changed to Chifamba bus crash? Ryan Vesey 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the accident occurred about 50 miles from Lusaka. I've moved it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some sources are saying "near Chibombo" rather than Chifamba. Perhaps would be worth determining the two nearest towns along the road in question and placing that information in the article. (i.e. "...occurred on the road between X and Y.") --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC) --update: looking across the sources, it seems Chibombo is the most used place-of-reference. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iff the article can be extended to a decent length. Generally speaking, outside of known conflict zones, disasters with fatalities of over 40 people are pretty much inherently notable. We may have to wait for a sufficient volume of information to be published in reliable sources before the article is of an adequate level of detail for posting. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got 5 sentences in, but my food just got here so I'm done for a while. I'm assuming one or some of the images found at this link would be appropriate for the article, right? There's no way of getting a free image. It also looks like we'll need to change the blurb to read a three vehicle accident Ryan Vesey 22:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, all the news sources seem to be interpretations on the same AP wire story. Does anyone know of, or have the requisite Google skills to find, any sources of more original information? Zambian news perhaps? It is an anglophone country. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done a few updates, and added a basic map. May be just about reaching minimum standards of article quality. LukeSurl ^{t c} 01:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I marked it as updated, if someone disagrees I'm fine with them unmarking it. Ryan Vesey 01:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We regularly post disasters with fewer deaths that this, and a similar accident in a Western country would almost certainly be posted. I am somewhat bemused by the suggestion that a traffic accident that kills 50 people is less notable that an air crash that kills the same number - I'd say traffic accidents that kill 50 or more people are probably rarer than air crashes with that level of fatalities. Neljack (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support would be on ITN in a flash if it had happened in the US or UK, and therefore should be posted. Black Kite (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That's pure speculation, and not a reason to support. --IP98 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even though I oppose posting this to the main page, I would like to say well done to Ryan Vessey, LukeSurl and Medeis. From no article to one good enough for MP in just a few hours. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Ryan Vesey 02:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. —David Levy 02:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation

Nominator's comments: A state owned financial institution dissolved, it's promissory notes replaced with bonds backed by the government. I usually oppose updates in the financial crisis, but this one seemed like a big deal .

• Weak support - Large corporation dissolved, direct state intervention, and we don't often post business stories (recent Dell posting notwithstanding). But it is only one corporation, and only one nation, which is why my endorsement is not stronger. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Total agreement with Alex's opinion. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to financial matters, but the article doesn't fully explain to me as to what this entity was. For the sake of my financially-clueless kin I would ask that this be strengthened before any main page posting. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two banks, the Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society were merged into the "Irish Bank Resolution Corporation" in 2011, after being taken over by the state in 2009. This is all part of the financial crisis. Basically the "Bank Resolution Corporation" existed to clean up what was left of the other two banks. What I found strange is that it was done with an emergency late night session, though I still can't understand why. --IP98 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that is where the notability lies? The unexplained suddenness of it. The lack of time given to legislators to even read the thing thoroughly. Section 6 instantly sacked hundreds of people and Section 17 gave additional powers to the finance minister which one Independent member of the Opposition said was likely to be unconstitutional and "a fundamental erosion of parliamentary democracy." It is certainly not an every day event.
• Oppose, arcane, local, low-impact. Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply huh? How is an apology for 20 year old slave laundries in Ireland not also arcane, local and low impact? --IP98 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these things can have broader impacts across the European Union and the European sovereign-debt crisis.

• Question how much money is in play here? The article didn't give me the answer. –HTD 04:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough to concern Cayman Islands hedge funds and the United States federal courts for a start.

Two things: It's still not on the article, and I read on the article "$200 million". I dunno if that's related here, and while that seems a lot, it's dwarfed by the $24 billion Dell buyout that elicited "so what?" and "not interested" responses below. Heck, the ponzi scheme of Aman Futures Group beats this by a a hundred million dollars (12 billion Philippine pesos is about 295 million dollars). –HTD 11:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a significant event in the European financial crisis. Updated with alt blurb. --RA (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Monopoly token change

Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Let's not waste time on this. Modest Genius talk 14:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Monopoly (game) (talk · history · tag) Blurb: ​ The iron in Monopoly is replaced by a cat. (Post) News source(s): BBC News Credits: Nominated by Lugnuts (talk · give credit) Article updated Hold the front page! Oppose this obviously non-serious waste of our time. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Wrong. Something that has been embedded into our culture since 1935 is not a waste of time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Do we report when football teams change their strips? Or move ground, for that matter? My point is not that Monopoly is not important, but that this is a superficial aspect of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Football isn't important, fullstop. But this is. Do not pass ITN. Do not add 200 edits. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] You're really straining my ability to assume good faith. If you've raised this proposal in order to make a point about the relative importance we appear to attach to different areas of human activity, I'd advise you to withdraw it. It would be better to state your point clearly and directly, with coherent arguments, in a more appropriate forum. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "If you've raised this proposal in order to make a point..." Er, no I haven't. Please practice what you preach and assume good faith too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I was always the ship anyway. --LukeSurl t c 10:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. I don't think this was a "waste of time", as it is being somewhat widely reported, but I don't think a minor change like this is notable enough for ITN. I would be curious to know if it was posted when they changed the color of Mediterranean and Baltic avenues from purple to brown, though(the last change they made, I think) 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I agree it's making news, but this is more of a "footballer kicks a ball into a net", "routine earthquake causes minimal damage", or "car accident in china injurs children", human interest story that we don't normally post, rather than a "massive corporate buyout" or "financian crisis narrowly averted" story that we do normally post. --IP98 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Minor Oppose, this story certainly has value in terms of reader interest, but c'mon, haha. *I always want to point out that where I live, in the UK - Monopoly is also iconic. This was one of the most read-about stories on the BBC yesterday. (FYI, last game I played I bankrupted my brother, nothing better than that) --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a side note, I wish they'd have gotten rid of the wheelbarrow instead. It keeps falling over... Kurtis ^(talk) 09:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Comment: I would actually have supported this. --RA (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tunisia assassination

Notable moment in Tunisia in regards to its satability following the revolution. Massive protests as we speak

Seems like there is no article yet. He is a notable figure in opposition. So perhaps we can create one. Im not sure what we call the party on WP, its one of the coalition at Template:Tunisian political partiesLihaas (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close until article is created.--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, but yes, we'd need an article in order to post. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Was he just a lawyer? I could support this if the article were updated to demonstrate his significance pre-assassination. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I just created the article and it could do with a bit more work but nonetheless, support. The subject is notable enough and has potential to cause serious consequences in the country and potentially the region. --Droodkin (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, but as Medeis says the article needs to cover his life as well as his death. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not entirely sure that he is more notable than the protests caused. The blurb should certainly mention the protests. I also don't understand the blurb as it stands right now. What is with the word "An"? Finally, his bio should certainly be expanded before this is posted. I'm left wondering who he was and what he did. He was a politician, was he actually involved in a branch of the Tunisian government? He was a lawyer, where did he work, what type of law did he practice? We're missing education information. Finally, what was his role in the revolution, and what has he done since? 5 sentences isn't going to cut it for this article, since we're starting from scratch rather than from an existing article. Ryan Vesey 20:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The article is coming along nicely regarding the death of Tunisia's opposition leader, though it has a few issues like the name in the infobox seemingly being misspelled. This is a reasonably big story around the world, and the lead headline in Aljazeera, and has symbolic impact across the Arab world, since Tunisia was where the Arab Spring started. I agree that the blurb needs an updating re: widespread protests/riots, and I have offered an alt blurb that can be further modified if need be. Also notable is the fact that Shokri Belaid semi-predicted his own violent death the day before the assassination, according to the article. Jusdafax 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jusdafax. Nice summary explaining the prominence in major news sources. --Jayron32 02:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the reasons given; this has been worked on enough for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this point since all that is stated is that he was a lawyer pre-assassination. The fact that he was a lawyer associated with a leftist party doesn't improve that according to NPOV wikipedia standards. If he was a major party candidate that's another thing, but that hasn't been added to the article or otherwise supported. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have put the fact that he was an "opposition leader," per the Aljazeera ref, into the lede, as well as the notable fact that his assassination brought down the government, with new elections called by the Prime Minister. Jusdafax 04:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned with the length. It's fine for a short article to go on the main page, but this is rather incomplete. Perhaps once it hits the main page, it will get improved. I'm still wondering why the blurb reads "An Shokri Belaid" what's with "An"? I can't find it in any of the sources. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would normally be Ash Shokri Belaid, (for the more classical Al Shokri Belaid) assuming the prefix is the definite article. Otherwise it should probably just be deleted, unless An- is a normal demonstrable form of Al in Tunisian? μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "al", and agree with the additional expansion regarding the government. I notice Aljazeera spells it "Shokri", where the NYT and Reuters spell his first name "Chokri." I have also added a bit more per Ryan's concerns regarding Belaid's opposition to Salafists. This was the first time I had heard of this term, and the link goes to a substantial article. Jusdafax 06:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chokri would just be the expected French transcription of what in English would be Shokri, as Chicago is pronounced Shikago. μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except English does not spell Chicago as "Shikago". --86.40.96.79 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's some sort of point to that comment to which you'd like a response I don't get it. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support then on Jusdafax's update that this caused the collapse of the government. Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready This (altblurb) is well updated and as one of the few (former) opposes I can also say there is quite good support. μηδείς (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 07:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Solomon Islands earthquake

• Oppose, thankfully. We post according to effect, not simply power, and casualties and fatalities are mercifully low (as far as we know at present: obviously open to change if catastrophic effects not yet come to wider attention) Kevin McE (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I agree with the above for smaller earthquakes, but magnitude>8 earthquakes occur on average once per year, and I think that they're notable enough in that right for ITN even without big death and destruction. However, the article is disproportionately weighted towards the (at the moment small) human effects of the earthquake, and has very little in the way of encyclopedic analysis (such as links to underwater earthquake or the specific type of tectonic interaction that resulted in the quake). 128.214.198.120 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Even if we did post quakes solely based on power, the magnitude here doesn't crack the top 30 or so (according to Lists of earthquakes). Effects also currently seem relatively minimal; if that changes we can revisit the issue. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. 8.0 or greater earthquakes are rare, generally about 1-2 a year on average I believe, so this is close. However, given the very minimal effects I'd say no.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lethal tsunamis are not that common, at least five dead and four villages destroyed with an 8.0 quake is notable and would certainly be posted if it happened in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. The article is technically updated, and the fact that the Earthquake Mavens haven't gotten to it yet is not an issue for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - As earthquakes go, this was surprisingly mild in effect for its strength. That said, Medeis is right: this would be news elsewhere, so it's news here. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Medeis. LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a earthquake, tsunami with deaths, and a 1/2 times a year event. Effects seem minimal and there's at least five deaths? That seems like not very minimal to me. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we posted every event with five deaths, ITN would be very long indeed. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that this five-death event is prominently In The News; that is, reliable news sources give it prominence, which seems to me to be a far better criterion than "I just don't like it" or "I just don't think this is important enough". We don't post every five-death event. We post events which are currently at the top of news sources, and which have adequate Wikipedia articles, not merely those that have been so blessed as "worthy" based on some arbitrarily set of standards. --Jayron32 19:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has their own standards, for better or for worse, arbitrary or not. The purpose of these discussions is to get a consensus as to what can meet everyone's different standards. There have been many widely covered events with good articles that don't get posted because they don't achieve consensus. This isn't a case of "I don't like it"; in my opinion the effects of this event are minimal and not far-reaching. Part of that is that there was only five deaths, but that isn't my sole criterion in forming my opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true, but I did not first make a statement characterizing the opinion of another editor as invalid (though in a roundabout way). You did that. If you're gonna give in that department, you should take. I recognize that you have the right to your opinion. If you're going to discount or belittle the opinion of others, as you did, you can't then be sensitive when the same happens to you. If you want to merely have your own standards, then do so without making such comment on others. Had you not commented, I would have not had any cause to comment back, and would have left you to your initial opinion. --Jayron32 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your opinion was "invalid", I gave a reason that we shouldn't go by it. Very different. You did the same thing, which is fine. If I thought your opinion was invalid, I would say so outright. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use that word, but you clearly discounted another's rationale using strawman language which belittled it. There are many ways to attempt to invalidate others, some more insidious... --Jayron32 15:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't use that word, then I didn't do it. You may believe what you wish; I know what I did. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you did was belittle someone's reasoning by implying that they were arguing that every five-death event should always be posted to ITN. They didn't do that, and charactizing their arguement in that way is a strawman. Cleverly crafted strawmen arguments that leave plausible deniability don't become innocuous merely because the person who made it shrugs and states "What? What did I do?" It's intellectually dishonest to present a clear strawman attack on someone elses opinion and then pretend like you didn't just do that. --Jayron32 19:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you may believe what you wish. I know what I did and am perfectly content with it. I'm willing to discuss it further on my talk page if you wish, but I have little interest in doing so on this page as it is getting off topic. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Widespread coverage, and the article is well-written. Remote location means death toll is likely to grow (the article says six deaths now.) 8.0 Quakes are not that common. Agree with those noting that if this had happened in the Caribbean or Mediterranean with the same death toll, that it would be an easier "sell" for an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this may be widely covered, but I'm not convinced of the notability of this. Not in the top 30 earthquakes, low damage, low deathtoll. We frown upon all kinds of stories that are widely reported, so that alone doesn't do it for me. --IP98 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 30 earthquakes? Like the 2011 Virginia earthquake? Or Krakatoa, or the Lisbon earthquake? Can you give a link explaining that comment? μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this one ok?. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In those examples, there was either a lot of damage (Krakatoa and Lisbon) or notable structures were damaged (the Virginia quake damaged the Washington Monument, among other things). We don't have that here, nor was it powerful relative to past earthquakes. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point being those were two or three centuries ago. Top 30 is absurd on its own as a criterion. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree, fine, but I think it's a stretch to call it "absurd". 331dot (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, comparing ITN nominations to centuries-old disasters is the definition of absurd. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I don't think your opinion is "absurd", which would suggest bad faith. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency; large earthquakes have always been posted, and smaller ones have been subject to debate. The area is cut off from communications, so details will continue to trickle in. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As a point of information, 8.0+ earthquakes occur, on average, once every 15 months. Make of that what you will. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the cutoff from large to small? Whats the last large one which was posted? --IP98 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cutoff, in my opinion, is what is covered In The News, since this section we're discussing is titled "In The News". When it gets titled "What I Think Is Important Enough", then we'll be able to work through your criteria. --Jayron32 02:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, generally. However, there are stories that will always be breaking news. Among them are "shots heard near school", "explosion observed at U.S. embassy", "Kate Middleton admitted to hospital", and, yes, "8.0-magnitude earthquake recorded". But even the media recognizes that sometimes these stories, once details are fleshed out, are just of the dog-bites-man variety. We need to recognize when that's the case, when the media, upon learning more, decides to move on. So maybe this was in the news twelve hours ago, but, from what I see, this is very much not in the news now. -- tariqabjotu 03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed; if we're going to post things because they "are in the news", we need to bring back a lot of events that were rejected(pretty much all of them). It isn't just what is "in the news", nor is it what you or I think is important, it is what consensus determines to be notable enough for inclusion on the front page of Wikipedia. Importance and "in the news" play into that, but so do all our opinions. 331dot (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Agreed, those who supported this before it was a five foot tsunami that destroyed several villages and killed at least five (probably not white) people probably shouldn't have. But lethal tsunamis don't happen as often as deadly tornados or European protest marches. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The thing is, it isn't merely being in the news, it is what news sources are covering it, and what prominence they give to it in their coverage. When major, national and international news organizations run a long, in depth story which appears at or near the top of their coverage (first few stories on main pages, front page on print news, cover stories on magazines, top stories on TV and Radio news, etc) that's the kind of evidenciary based criteria we should be debating here, not the tallies of deaths or other criteria we ourselves invent. Instead, we should be evaluating sources themselves and saying "The BBC gave this a three sentence story which is completely buried and impossible to find" or "The only sources covering this are highly local newspapers without any national or international reach" OR "The BBC, New York Times, and Al Jazeera are all running multiple, in-depth stories covering this topic, and those stories are prominently displayed" are the sorts of rationales we should be presenting when assessing stories like this. "There's only five deaths" shouldn't even enter into the discussion. The point of ITN is not to promote the sorts of stories we personally find worthwhile. The point of ITN is to direct readers to Wikipedia articles that cover topics they are seeing in the news. Highly prominent news stories out there which also have decent articles in here should be be the sorts of things we base our discussions around because that's what serves our readers. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, Jayron, it didn't sound like your response to IP98 was simply a disagreement with his question as a matter of procedure. In a subthread up above, you said this was in the news, without saying to what extent. I contest that; it's hard to find stories about this unless I just Google them. And when I locate them, they're hardly in depth. I don't know if this comment here was just a response to 331dot, but I already took the approach you suggested (noting the quantity and quality of news sources) in comments above and below, while discounting the use of magnitude or death levels as thresholds for inclusion on ITN. -- tariqabjotu 04:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • • The BBC website had a top-level headline story about this when the quake hit, and news cycles being what they are, it isn't there this instant, but it was there. Same for CNN.com, though the story has moved from the main page to the #3 story on the world page; such movement happens with nearly every story on major news sites: it's exceedingly rare for any story to stay on the main page for more than a day. This was the lead story on NPR when it hit. If I tuned up All Things Considered tonight, a different story would air. Most of the major news outlets are running follow-on stories today as well. So this one is clearly getting prominent treatment. There's still a main page BBC story right now covering the aftermath, This one is on www.bbc.com right now. If you wait 2 days any story is going to roll off the front page of many news sources. It doesn't mean it wasn't given prominent treatment. So, you can't just wait two days and then decide that this earthquake was a minor story by trying to find the news headlines on the websites. No story stays the top headline that long. --Jayron32 05:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I would say 6.0. However, those questions don't mean anything without context, and that's really what I believe posting earthquakes should be about. And that comes from both angles. The angle it was a magnitude 8.0, so let's post it is wrong. The angle it's not among the highest magnitude earthquakes in the past X years, so let's not post it is doubly wrong. Most of the most prolific earthquakes in history have not been earthquakes of this magnitude; among them, 2010 Haiti (7.0), 2010 Christchurch (6.7), 1999 Chi-Chi (7.1), 1999 Izmit (7.6), 1995 Kobe (6.8), and 1994 Northridge (6.7). And those are not difficult to find; most prolific earthquakes you could probably think of had magnitudes less than 8.0. Many faults are incapable of achieving magnitudes of that caliber (that's about the maximum earthquake that could theoretically be generated on the San Andreas Fault, for example). Perhaps more important than magnitude in predicting whether an earthquake will be disastrous are the density of the area, the quality of the structures in the area, and the soil conditions. The primary exceptions to that rule are with tsunamis, but they are generally catastrophic when they are due to high[er]-magnitude earthquakes from subduction zones.

    And, given the high seismicity of sparsely populated parts of the Pacific, 8.0-magnitude earthquakes that cause very little damage, like this one, are not at all uncommon (as demonstrated by the USGS link above), so the direct connection from magnitude to importance is just as tenuous. I could see us posting 9.0+-magnitude earthquakes no matter what because they're so rare (despite the fact that there have been a especially high number over the past decade), but generally the magnitude doesn't mean anything without context. Upon initial reports of a 8.0-magnitude earthquake happening somewhere on the planet, the media is quick to (rightly so) turn some attention toward it, since -- as shown -- earthquakes of that magnitude when positioned strategically could be catastrophic. But when nothing major is shown to have occurred, they tend to, rightly again, turn their attention away, putting it down as just another major earthquake that occurs on a remote part of this planet without much effect on human life. That's what happened here; at this hour, I have to dig deep to find news about this seismic event. I don't think we should overstate or understate the importance of an earthquake of this magnitude, but, this one at least, is not particularly notable. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nine dead now.[48] Covered in NZ, Aus[49], BBC[50] (linked from main world news page[51]). There are more prominent news items on each, including a Australian sport doping scandal, so I don't know. Leaning towards posting. AIRcorn (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The article is fine, there appears sufficient support, and there it has been sufficient evidence that (perhaps because of aftershocks now) this story is still in the news. -- tariqabjotu 07:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Dell story below, the supports and opposes are roughly equal, so I'm not clear on where the consensus to post it is. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count votes. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but claiming consensus for a position would suggest that there was more support for one side than another, which I didn't see here. The issue is moot now, anyway. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But while consensus can be reflected by merely counting heads, it's not accurate at all: some opposes are worth more than others, based on the substance of the reasoning. I'd expect Tariq (and any other admin, for that matter) to have taken the time to read the all arguments put forward and to have made a decision based on the strength of each side. I'm not saying that was the case here though; like you said, it's moot now. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

United Kingdom's Commons vote on same-sex marriage

• Oppose as it was not the final vote; probably shouldn't be posted until then, at least. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 311dot. Once it's signed into law, fix up Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill and nominate for an easy support. --IP98 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Precedent seems to hold that gay marriage legalization is significant enough to post, particularly as it's becoming more common. Swarm ^X 04:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose once it's all passed we can post. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even when full legislation goes through. A shift in legislation is gradually happening worldwide: each step on the journey is not notable of itself. Eight other European countries have already enacted similar laws, and three others are on track to act before this. Blurb is misleading: proposed legislation only applies to 2 out of 4 constituent nations of UK. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on Oppose Partly for the same reason I opposed the Dell deal below, still got a long way to go in the processes, at least one more vote in the lower house and then at least three more in the upper house. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Because this is only the second reading. I'd support royal assent to the resulting act; the UK is a large jurisdiction, and the interaction of this measure with the presence of an established church provides a distinctive feature. But as it stands, this nomination is some months premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Magdalene laundries

• Before I give any opinion on the merits of this item, the blurb needs to be much shorter. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning towards supporting this; it's certainly being widely reported(it's on the front page of NBC News right now, aside from the other sources given) but a shorter blurb would be better. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. The issue for me is that the last asylum was closed for 20 years, so no major changes can really come of this. Also I can't figure out from the article what "state collusion" means exactly. Was it one corrupt bureaucracy, was is systemic across multiple government agencies? Lastly, the statement "mumbled a half-hearted apology" may be technically accurate, but it reads as POV. I would support this, but would like the above addressed. Before posting a reply with a link to the BBC, instead use that link as an inline ref and update the article :). --IP98 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuetral until the blurb is significantly shortened. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now offer my support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the story, agree the blurb is too long. Looking at the BBC front page, their text is Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny apologises for the stigma and conditions suffered by women who were inmates of the Magdalene laundries. - perhaps we can work something from that? CaptRik (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's massive controversy over the "apology". [52] [53] [54] Best focus on the publication of the report and not cause any further distress to the survivors and the families of those worked to death. --86.40.193.234 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've shortened the existing blurb as an alternative, but I am perfectly open to other possibilities. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reports and apologies for the sins of others may be fashionable, but they are not news. μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you conclude that? There's nothing else in the news in Ireland today and it's made it through Washington, Los Angeles and New York, across Europe and the Middle East. This is being compared to Nazi Germany and Soviet Gulags by survivors on the TV right now. So how can it not be "news"? --86.40.193.234 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been news 17 years ago when it ended, it might be news were someone being jailed on a serious charge now. Interviewing people and issuing reports is what the media and governments do. I hope you are not comparing this to Nazi and Soviet atrocities. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose these sort of apologies for events decades in the past seem pretty common. Yea what happened is terrible, but that doesn't make it front page worthy. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was posted on many news outlet's front pages, at least initially. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with my shorter alt blurb. A significant story. This development, implication the state, is a good marker to post at. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with LukeSurl's much better AltBlurb. While reports, apologies, etc, are certainly not inherently notable for ITN purposes, this one represents a substantial new admission of complicity in a very wide-ranging scandal of human rights abuses. It also comes amid discussions on whether Ireland should move to the 'Nordic model' of legal controls on sex work, prompted in part by the same religious groups responsible for the Laundries. This (and other discussions of state oppression) root this report in a wider contemporary and international context. That factor, combined with the considerable novelty of the admission, makes this worthy for ITN in my eyes. I will understand if other editors do not agree; reports are a marginal case. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)--IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the AltBlurb. It's much better. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The first blurb was confusing, this one works. A disturbing story I had not heard of. The release of the report is the key factor, and arguments that this happened years ago carry little weight. Jusdafax 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, post posting. This story has everything one would want in an ITN listing. Human interest, worldwide impact (given that the Church is on the hook all the way to the Vatican, and that some of the victims have immigrated), good legal basis for lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Dell

 --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose So what? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Reuters article I linked: "the biggest leveraged buyout since the financial crisis", "biggest private equity-backed leverage buyout since Blackstone Group LP's takeout of the Hilton Hotels Group in July 2007 for more than $20 billion, and is the 11th-largest on record". Dell is also the world's third largest computer maker and on the Fortune 500. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So not much of importance really then. What impact will this have 5 years from now? Michael Dell will be a little richer for his gamble, that's about it. It's minor business news and I still oppose. PS Dell assembles computers and makes little, so I doubt it's the 3rd largest computer makers. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not interested.--WaltCip (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update this is a buyout of a public company, not company A absorbing company B. These sorts of things aren't that common. In addition, Ks0stm's points. The article needs an update though. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "So what?" "Not interested"? Please see PDN #1 above. FWIW I didn't give a damn about a 500 year old skeleton being identified as a long dead king, but I was still willing to acknowlede the significance, read the article update, and post a support. Kindly get real. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Witholding my support pending a proper update to the article. It seems significant, given Dell's status as a market leader in its industry, and business news is a minority topic; having a variety of topics is always a nice break from the sports-disaster-war-politics cycle. I would support this if I had more than one line of text to evaluate. If this is worth putting on the main page, its worth adding a paragraph or two to the article itself. --Jayron32 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to support based on update. --Jayron32 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update; a uncommon event on a somewhat large scale, though article needs updating. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Four sentence update as of my writing, which is almost there. This is a significant deal which appears to meet ITN threshold. Oppose votes should not be regarded, as IP98 says. I also don't care about the bones of a dead king, but agree that was newsworthy enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated. I have added several sentences about the buyout at Dell#2013 buyout. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Due to coverage in media, and Dell being a pretty decent article. Partly disagree with the comment from Muboshgu, who seems to suggest "newsworthy" is more important than WP:ENC. I think it likely that in as little as 10 years Richard III and his bones will be more valuable in our learning of humanity than a business buy out. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, on re-reading that came off as a touch aggresive to Muboshgu for which I apologise. My point is that in ten years time the circumstances and science of finding the bones of Richard is likely (IMHO) to be far more enriching an entry than a footnote about a reverse buy out in the article on a computer company. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense taken. I happen to think that in ten years time, Dell's status will matter more than Richard III's remains, but who knows, right? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The claims of significance actually diminish this story: they read as "the biggest since not very long ago". We also need to cut to the actual substance of the story: Micheal Dell has let his intentions be known for several weeks at least, and this still requires shareholder approval. The story then is not one of any real solidity but amounts to the board reaching a decision to recommend the bid. 3142 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still pretty significant, actually, especially when you think that 1) Wikipedia has only existed since 2001, so it's the largest in nearly half this site's history, and 2) it's still the 11th largest ever. This is also the appropriate time to post, not when Michael Dell said he wanted to buy back the company. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready well sourced update, decent article, no orange tags, consensus to support, with 2 of the 3 opposes being "so what" and "not interested". --IP98 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is this final, or is the buyout still subject to approval somewhere? Spencer^T♦C 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The buyout is still subject to shareholder approval. However, we are talking about a major company making one of the largest transactions of its type in financial history. Resolute 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The price of $13.65 per share represents a 25 percent premium over Dell's stock price before news of a pending deal leaked in January. I'm not expecting opposition... --IP98 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not convinced as to its notability - as has been noted elsewhere this is simply one step in the process and no, IP98, we do not second-guess the outcomes. However the real issue here is that the update is frankly appalling: you are told that it is going private three times using different formulations of words and there are other instances of similar redundancy. If the claim is that this is notable there should be no problem getting a well-rounded update together that does not need to repeat itself to get to the minimum update measure. ﬥ (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • That's a load of hooey. The update is fine and has quite minimal redundancy. I still think now is the time to post, as well. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Ks0stm. We had an edit conflict, I'm still going to say my piece :
      • ﬥ You're not convinced that one of the largest cash buyouts in history, of a major industry player, by the original company founder, is not notable? I don't see how we're told it's going private "three times using different formulations of words". Is "The $24.4 billion buyout" somehow redundant? It's not needed to lead into "is the largest leveraged buyout backed by private equity since the 2007 financial crisis."?? (which by the way helps to establish notability). How, ﬥ would you word it? Better yet, fix the article if it's inadequate! --IP98 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't we wait until these sort of things actually happen? Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose None of the adduced arguments puts weight on the story. The largest leveraged buyout since July 2007 and the 11th largest on record are simply not enough in time and size to conclude any outstanding importance beyond it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A major tech and business story. Update is a bit on the thin side but good enough. Jusdafax 22:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To start with the deal is not final, until it is completed we should not post it. Even when it is completed unless it can tick a box that shows it is a notable first or largest then it should not be posted, from what I can see it is only the 11th largest such deal and for a company that is only third in its field. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose business minutiae, lacking any notable "firsts." I also object to the business-press phrasing ("going private"), which doesn't read well over all English dialects and doesn't mean anything to someone unfamiliar with such phrasing. 128.214.198.120 (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn (unless someone else wants to take over this). I'm sorry, but (and I mean this with the utmost respect) y'all can go [insert your choice of action here]. Personally, I feel like I need to go pet some kittens or eat a nice dinner or something to boost my morale. I don't know since when ITN has become such a cesspool of rejection, but it seems like any time I come around here lately the timer is red because we can't get consensus to post a goddamn story often enough. I also note how amazingly sad that is since blurbs are ridiculously cheap. They're one line of text in a template that goes on the main page. You would think we could agree on one to add every 24 hours or so, but evidently not. It didn't used to be that way...ITN nominations didn't used to have to have 25,407 deaths, a new prime minister and a world champion to be posted, and the way this nomination has gone doesn't make me feel very confident that it's going to get rectified any time soon. Don't count on me returning to ITN for quite a while, or at least until I get my morale back up to the point where I don't feel like I could nominate a plane crash with 200+ deaths and somehow manage for it to not be posted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can definitely sympathize with the frustration when you put a lot of work into a valid nomination. But there has been a strong tendency to commercial deals and roll-outs, so I can't say I am surprised at the attitude. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per those above. Very big numbers of dollars flying around and a decent update. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, we could post the buyout when it occurs later if we don't get consensus for the annoucement. I'm happy either way. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the announcement, but support the buyout when it occurs; we don't post enough business news, and this will be an excellent story when it comes to pass. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply the thing is, there won't be a big news item when it's complete. The announcement is the big item. Now the wheels will grind, money will flow, probably for some months shares will be bought back. The stock will be delisted. Im totally over it at this point, but this would have been the right time to post. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reading through every single oppose above atleast 2 dont even have a reason. one is for the update which i think isnt the concern here since it has a good para but maybe it can be worked on if we get more of a consensus. The others about notability dont really state why its not notable but just say its not a "first". we dont only post firsts so i dont know how valid of argument that is. In reality its a pretty big news in the business world and of wide interest. If ever we had to differentiate between poll vs consensus based discussion then this will be it. Its not like we are posting 2-3 items a day that we can afford to slow ITN down even more... (yes i know we need consensus no need to state that but when some people always oppose that becomes harder and harder) -- Ashish-g55 23:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 07:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Sorry, but it really strikes me against you as someone who really deserves to be an admin.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull immediately Not that it didn't receive any support, but there is simply no consensus towards posting. I have never seen an admin posting a story with this balance of votes. Pretty strange!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There was plenty of support, two of the opposes were "Not interested" and "so what", like it or not, there was consensus to post. A few vocal opposes can't outweigh the supports, I know this, I vhemently oppose football noms which get posted anyway. --IP98 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I supported this, I must agree that there isn't a consensus here; the supports and opposes seem roughly equal. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8 supports 9 opposes, you need to disregard half of the opposes to get consensus. Nergaal (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodness no, we can't possibly have an item on the main page that might cause people to learn something they didn't already know. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE MUST PROTECT WIKIPEDIA FROM THIS SCOURGE. --Jayron32 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And to think, I didn't know Spain ordered tanks from America. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to Jayron32) That's not the issue(and it's only part of the purpose of ITN). The issue is the fact that there was no consensus to post this. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may disregard my comment above and ask a question...who cares? What harm is it doing sitting on the main page? The wiki isn't going to explode, it's not the end of the world, it's just sitting there...a line of text on the main page that might just actually be informative to some of our readers. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not sufficient. If there was no consensus, there was no consensus(again, I supported posting this). 331dot (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOHARM is not enough of a reason to post it (which I agree, it probably shouldn't have been), but in my opinion it is enough of a reason to leave it there. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus shouldn't just be ignored just because something squeaked by it, otherwise there is no point to these discussions. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as I said in my rant above, they seem pointless anyway. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to ignore 3 of the opposes. "So what", Sun Creator. "Not Interested" WaltCip. "business minutiae, lacking any notable" Anon IP. --IP98 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more, from Kiril Simeonovski and LightGreenApple amounted to "not big enough". I believe that their statements are valid, but since we don't heave a "minumum deaths" or "maximum size of earthquake", we don't have a "minimum business merger" either. --IP98 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going into very dangerous territory to start judging whose opinions are valid and whose aren't. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all we do here. You could almost have a redirect from WP:PASSIVEAGRESSIVE to WP:ITNC. I don't mean the individuals as a whole make invalid opinions, but in this particular case, yes, I'm challenging their validity. The first two based on the PDN #1, and the other two based on precedent. How is that dangerous? --IP98 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it needs to be done very carefully, lest we all start deciding everyone else's opinion doesn't count. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Referred to AN/I This is outrageous. There is a clear majority against posting, backed up even by the nominator of the story. Arguments for posting are not compelling in that the essential points to come up at discussion are:

For posting:

• Biggest since 1997
• 11th biggest on record
• Minority Topic --IP98 (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically dismissed by consensus on talk page a while page. As a regular here you should know that. ﬥ (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant coverage by WP:RS sources. --IP98 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and a sourced, decent update in an overall decent article which would be a good focus on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a sourcve where Dell state what it is claimed they have stated. On the contrary, I see statements where they specifically state they are leaving the door open to other offers and indeed I have linked to such previously. You were also certain that this would be passed by the shareholders and forget about the usual concerns over crystal balling. Why then are growing numbers of shareholders lining up in opposition to the bid?[55] This was wrong when it was posted, it's still wrong now, and it is looking less that the what we are reporting as fact now will ever come to pass. ﬥ (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Against posting:

• 1997 is recent
• Only the 11th biggest on record so not groundbreaking in any way
• Narrowly drawn category to boost notability - hell, Virgin Media was subject to a similar sized offer 24 hours later, but somehow that is less noptable because it was financed differently.
• It hasn't happened yet and as such the blurb is factually incorrect.

• The blurb reads "Dell announces it will go private in a $24.4 billion leveraged buyout.". There is nothing factually incorrect about that statement. The announcement is made, we posted the announcement. Therefore this "oppose" rationale is in fact factually incorrect. --IP98 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro posting camp are forecasting the future and coming to different conclusions to professional observers. We're all reassured that IP98 is not expecting opposition but it is enough of a possibility that time has explicitly been set aside by those in a position to do something about it so that rival offers can be made:[56]. ﬥ (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My arguments against the AN/I have been posted there. Here I would like to point out that WP:NOHARM is an essay, not policy, and that it was written for deletion dissicussions. ITN serves to aid the main page, which ultimately exists to further the goals of the encylopedia. Ultimately, has the posting of this item, replacing a news story from 31 January, made the Main Page better or worse? Unless you believe that this posting has significantly worsened the main page this post-posting discussion does nothing but stir up bad blood. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It may not damage or harm the main page, but this page has very little meaning if things are going to get posted regardless of what goes on here. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the statement "but this page has very little meaning if things are going to get posted regardless of what goes on here" is a bit of a stretch in this case. It was a 50/50 !vote, with some very questionable opposes. The article is fine, and the admin made a judgement call. If the monopoly nom got posted then maybe we could say there is a problem, but not with this. --IP98 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • You may not find the supports compelling, but someone certainly did. Feel free to submit a nomination at WP:RFA if you feel like you can do a better job. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others have already said what needed to be said. The first two opposes weren't considered as they provided no reasons. From the rest of the discussion, while it was certainly not unanimous, I felt there was generally an overarching opinion that the story about Dell going private was notable enough to be inclusion on ITN. It was just muddled by the issue of whether to post it now or later. I have no idea whether the conclusion of the buyout would be another major story, but I could easily see the counterpoints provided by those who supported the item suggesting that this will be a long, drawn-out process with no definitive point where another significant news story would occur. I generally don't believe in the "this is the type of items ITN posts, and this is the type of items we don't post", and so when there is consensus about the notability of the item, but plans for posting at a moment that is uncertain to actually occur, I tend to lean on the side of posting. And, that's what I did. This is ITN, not RfB; we do not need the vast majority of people to consider a story important for it to have sufficient consensus for posting. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While I oppose this item, I respect any decision that an admin makes on this. It's not easy weight many factors like slow amount of news, so no complaints from me. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Senkaku Islands radar lock

Nominator's comments: I had nominated a statement by the Japanese PM and was rejected because it wasn't an action. It's now an action. -- Kotjap (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I still oppose this until weapons are fired, there are casualties, or physical damage to a ship. Reading the source given, this also happened to a helicopter on January 19th. Neither that event or this one has been widely reported, from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 311dot. This sort of incident was routine during the cold war. NK does it to SK all the time. --IP98 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment maybe a sticky? --IP98 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. The small incidents occurring in the sticky really aren't individually notable enough to be posted as separate items. I think a "wait and see" approach is best right now. Spencer^T♦C 21:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the same reason as others, no weapons fired yet. Ryan Vesey 22:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; it is practically a non-event. 75.62.130.32 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is standard international jockeying. This spat will have to reach at least the engaged seriousness of the Cod Wars before I'm prepared to back it for ITN, and even then, it would depend on the circumstances. I'd encourage kotjap to stop nominating every incident related to the Islands for ITN, and to practice bringing a nomination on an unrelated topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] Remains of Richard III identified

Nominator's comments: Interesting story that seems to be getting a lot of press. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a significant event for one of the UK's better known monarchs, due to Shakespeare, etc, and if my recall of history is correct, the last British English monarch killed in battle.  An optimist on the run! 11:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's not every day that the remains of a medieval ruler are identified! However, I've suggested an alternative blurb in the template above. Modest Genius ^talk 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb. An interesting, different event receiving wide coverage. Involves a head of state(even if a medieval one). 331dot (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And not just head of state, but most all of the skeleton too (sorry). But the extent of the spinal defomity may at last help to dispel the myth that Richard was the limping hunchback (sometimes) portayed in the Shakespeare play. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Groan. Modest Genius ^talk 12:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sting (percussion) --IP98 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a story of good encyclopeadic interest. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. But I suggest that the blurb describes him as "Richard III of England", to avoid any doubt. (I know there were not many other people called Richard III, but we should err on the side of trying to be helpful to those seeking information.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb with "of England" appended. --IP98 (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, strongly agree with most of the reasoning above... I had a 'hunch' it was him. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready article is updated, strong consensus to post. --IP98 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the alt blurb, seems better. --Tone 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Post post support quite incredible that we find a king of England's remains under a car park, older than modern-day America. The remains, that is, not the car park. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article Exhumation of Richard III has been created as it may warrant a link. FallingGravity (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made it the new bold link. —David Levy 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. But how do they know it's Richard III? I suppose they're probably just basing it on a hunch...Formerip (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They found a note on the remains saying "Now is the winter of our discontent"! -- Ashish-g55 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would read "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!"--WaltCip (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Super Bowl XLVII

Nominator's comments: I included a few random sources to show its international press. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 04:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after update, once the game is over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support of course, but only after we know who wins. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Preposterous I suggest people who want to support this before it is over read this etymology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
  • This is what I was talking about. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪Contribs) 05:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think your bot suggestion makes sense. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear support Do we not include the score in the blurb? Ryan Vesey 17:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note It should be posted as soon as possible after the game but not before a tense shift occurs throughout. Ryan Vesey 17:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it would need a prose update too..Lihaas (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but disagree to include the score in the blurb, as we usually do it with other sport events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you clarify? I didn't understand whether you meant the score should or shouldn't be included. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer a blurb with no score.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What the hell is the point of ITN/R if these kinds of discussions are permitted to continue?"It's much better to gain consensus now than to wait around after the game"? Consensus for what? It's on ITN/R, so it already meets the importance criterion, and it gets posted every year in exactly the same fashion (that's without the score). And there certainly won't be a suitable update for at least nine hours, and often not even then. But when one does materialize, one could theoretically point it out to an admin and ask him/her to post it regardless of what it said over here. So, this barely needs a nomination, let alone hours before the event. Why do people insist on having and justifying these pointless discussions for certain events? It's like you're fishing for oppose votes to shoot down. -- tariqabjotu 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For those who are saying "we always post this" or "it's a big time event", as you can see here and here, for some reason this is always called "U.S.-centric" and has always been a controversy in previous years. The only reason I nominated it so early was to get the "arguing" out of the way so it could be posted sooner rather than later (after the game of course). It's obviously not U.S.-centric because it is covered in the sources I put in the nomination, as well as many, many more... Shark96z (talk ·contribs) 20:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need then to bait the tolls with a nom some 18 hours before the game starts then. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to support as this is on ITNR. But can the blurb please using our usual ENGVAR-neutral phrasing? (X concludes with Y defeating Z ...) Modest Genius ^talk 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Game is Over, Support GO RAVENS! (Seriously now, it's the super bowl) -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Let's get this done. Jusdafax 04:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not posting until game summary section is filled in. It's like election results when posting elections...we can't post with just a box score. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn rubbish game with riggesd electricty circuits to get the tension up! Its more notable with the historical feats: longest TD run ever in suprbowl (apparently longest rush TD in superbowl too), nearly the biggst comeback..Lihaas (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. The article has been sufficiently updated to have this go live on the main page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, do you realize the updated section has almost no references in it? Orange tags generally prevent an article from being posted to the Main Page, especially when it's in the "updated" section. The game summary is great, but it's a huge swath of unreferenced text. --tariqabjotu 10:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Tariqabjotu pulled the item. For the record, having seen the above message, I was about to do the same thing. —David Levy 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I was initially going to stick with the message, but it was apparent that Metropolitan was... er... new to updating ITN, and may not have fully understood the criteria for posting. -- tariqabjotu10:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITN says that "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable." The game summary has more than five sentences, and more than three references. The unreferenced parts of the summary do not detract from the single sentence of information that goes on the ITN template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a misleading description. "The unreferenced parts of the summary" are actually the vast majority of the section. Three of the four references in the entire section are about the power outage rather than the game itself. This clearly isn't acceptable for being featured on the Main Page, even without getting to the part of WP:ITN where it says "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." -- tariqabjotu 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You've just confirmed your unfamiliarity with with ITN.
  The section's purpose isn't to report news. "The single sentence of information that goes on the ITN template" is merely a pointer to the encyclopedia article, the quality of which is highly relevant. (As Tariqabjotu noted, even orange-level issues unrelated to the update can keep an article off the main page.)
  "At minimum three references" is roughly what's expected of "a five-sentence update". For sporting events, we look for a full summary. We have one, but the four references are nowhere near adequate. —David Levy 11:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I, however, am familiar with Wikipedia's WP:V policy, which is a lot more important. Many of the references listed at the bottom of the article include a game summary. These facts are reported ubiquitously and are not at all contentious. The reader could choose almost any reference on the list and be able to quickly verify the facts reported in the game summary section. As such, it is not at all correct to say the section is un-referenced. While inline references are desirable, they are not strictly required. Therefore, I would like to restore the event to ITN. Many people will look at Wikipedia today and expect to find that listing. Placing the listing on the home page will be good for Wikipedia because it will give the article exposure, motivate improvements, and hopefully bring in a few new editors. One or two editors mis-understanding policy should not be grounds to pull important content from view. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  agree and marking ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  See below. —David Levy 14:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As stated at WP:MINREF (to which you linked at Talk:Main Page), inline citations are required for any statement that has been "tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag" (which constitutes a challenge). 14:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  Correct, but I don't see any of those, and if somebody puts in spurious tags just to make a point, I will ignore them. There has to be a bona fide dispute about the content, not just somebody doing an policy endrun by slapping tags on things. A bona fide content dispute would include a statement on the article talk page explaining why the content is challenged. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The tag citations tag has been removed as of now. The article has 76 references, and I completly agree with Jehochman on the nature of the need for inline references at this point. This article is in a far better state than many posted at ITN. I won't mark it 'ready' again but my suggestion is post now. --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been removed on the basis that the "article contains 76 references", which ignores the underlying concern. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Do you assert that {{refimprove}} isn't a "similar tag"?
  2. Do you assert that users must possess specific knowledge that a statement is false in order to challenge it?
  3. No, "a statement on the article talk page" isn't required. This is explicitly noted at WP:MINREF. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Little confused About the whole ITN/R-thingie and the need to go through a vote like this. I Support btw as this is a clearly notable, unique sports event.--Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this discussion is to evaluate the quality of the article, its blurb, and whether or not it has sufficiently been updated; ITN/R means its notability is not at issue, unlike other nominations on this page. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Put it back up The entire section is sourced, just not with inline citations. Nobody is contesting the material. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the use of the {{refimprove}} tag constitutes a challenge. Editors needn't assert that the claims are false. When reasonable doubt is expressed (because a statement's accuracy isn't inherently obvious), inline citations are required. —David Levy 15:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't. You're being tendentious. Please point out specific facts within the section that are challenged. I just checked it very carefully and found one small problem (a reference to Twitter) which I fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no idea whether most of the statements are true or false. The onus is on those making the claims to establish the former. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Doubts aren't being expressed because people believe the information is false. "Doubts" are being expressed to keep the article off the main page. That's pointy disruption and you know it. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) The energy being spent debating the merits of standard practice could instead be used to fix the actual problem. This is a huge sporting event, there will be no shortage of reliable newspaper sources to use to fill in any gaps. The fact that there even was a citation to Twitter and not the 477,000,000 Google hits for "Super Bowl XLVII" (66,000,000 under "News" alone) is cause for concern. GRAPPLE X 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody has yet challenged any fact in the game summary, except an anon who mentioned that the "blown transformer" wasn't correct, which I did fix. You can look at past Superbowl articles and see that the game summary isn't loaded with inline references. These facts are non-contentious because everybody watched the same game and saw what happened. All reports are similar. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not everyone watched the game (or is even familiar with the sport) You perceive statements that obviously are accurate, but others see them differently. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop beating the straw man. Which fact in the article is dubious? You have to identify a specific fact to say that the content is challenged. You can't just make a general challenge in the form of "I don't like it all. Please put an inline citation on every sentence." If you were acting in good faith you'd point out a few dubious statements, somebody would fix them, and we'd move on. It would take an incredible amount of work to cite every sentence. At this point it looks very much like the regulars here are bottling up the process to make a point that they want to be in control, and that if anybody else comes here and tries to do something, they will be frustrated endlessly. Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  No one demanded that every sentence receive its own citation. That's a straw man.
  At the start of this discussion, almost the entire game summary contained no inline citations (and three of the four that were present were unrelated to the competition).
  You've continually implied that statements cannot be challenged without specific knowledge that they're incorrect. That isn't how Wikipedia works. It isn't my responsibility to research the claims and determine which ones are inaccurate (as you suggested on my talk page). Their accuracy must be established.
  I don't know why you believe that Tariqabjotu and I set out to exclude this item. Why would we do that? Why would we want to eliminate an ITN update during this particularly slow period? Why would we object to increased participation? I've urged editors to become involved in the ITN process, and I recall Tariqabjotu doing the same. Do you possess any knowledge of our attitudes regarding the section, or have you based these accusations of bad faith on a single instance in which we disagreed with you? —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ryan, please strike your assumption of bad faith. ITN has its standards - the article will not go on the main page if it is not suitably updated...--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The regulars at ITN are not allowed to make their own local laws in contravention of WP:V. What's happening here is a pissing match. Some regulars are upset that a non-regular deigned to post the article, so they removed it and are not going to allow it up again until everybody bows and kisses their feet. This behavior is appalling. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, it takes at least two to have pissing contest. Fortunately, it looks like Ryan Vesey is going to save us all by adding some references to the game summary section. Can we agree to let him finish that editing, and then post the article? Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I finished the first quarter, but I'll be gone for a while. We need a source for the statement "It was the first time a team scored a touchdown on its first drive of the game since the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII". If someone wants to continue using the play-by-play to source the summary, please re-add the in-use section tag, otherwise I'll start referencing again when I get back and I don't want to wreck your work. Ryan Vesey 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I find that accusation of bad faith quite insulting too. When I saw that a non-regular had posted the item, I responded by correcting its formatting and switching to a related image.
  You're entitled to express the opinion that we're wrong, but I can't imagine why you (and Ryan) would attribute our actions to malice or spite. —David Levy 15:47/16:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I find that accusation of bad faith quite insulting. Over the years, I've supported the inclusion of Super Bowl items with great passion (including arguments with those who asserted that it was "non-notable" and made anti-American comments), despite the fact that I don't follow sports. Earlier today (before this issue came to light), I created a custom thumbnail of the 2013 MVP and placed it on the main page.
  I have no idea whether most of the information is true or false. The onus is on those making the claims to establish the former. —David Levy 15:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I find your stonewalling quite insulting. Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry that you perceive my actions as stonewalling. I've done my best to communicate my honest concerns. I take no offense at accusations that I'm wrong, but I don't understand why you'd attribute my position to malice/spite. I disagree with you, but you don't see me questioning your motives; I don't doubt that you have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for my accusation of bad faith. I was perturbed because you made it clear that you had no idea whether any information was true or false. You are correct that you shouldn't need to know it is false to challenge the material, but you should have a reasonable doubt as to its credibility. Unfortunately, I'm eating crow as I had to fix a small number of incorrect statements. Ryan Vesey 17:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for my accusation of bad faith.
  Thank you, Ryan. I sincerely appreciate it.
  You are correct that you shouldn't need to know it is false to challenge the material, but you should have a reasonable doubt as to its credibility. Unfortunately, I'm eating crow as I had to fix a small number of incorrect statements.
  I was genuinely concerned about the possibility. Please understand that from my perspective, the summary was a massive wall of claims with few clear sources. I understand that a fan of the sport might take much of this information for granted, but the article isn't written purely for such individuals' benefit. Thanks for working to resolve the issue. —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted that if every person here had put the effort in to fixing the problems in the article as they have in complaining here about it, this would be an FA-quality article by now. --Jayron32 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  At FAC the reviewers are helpful. They will make lists of what they think is wrong with the article so that things can be fixed. Here, a few editors are playing a game of disputing things, but refusing to provide any particulars. They say they are challenging the content, but refuse to specify which items. Meanwhile, the article has 50+ references that support the content. This process is a horrible case of WP:BITE and WP:OWN. Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The article contained a tag indicating the problem before the issue was even raised here. We explained how to fix it, and Ryan did so (and found some incorrect statements in the process). —David Levy 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Marking as Ready. There are no large sections lacking citations anymore, and the summary section is of sufficient length and adequately referenced. --Jayron32 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted. The game summary section looks extensive and well referenced to me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I posted it. Our edit conflict machine needs help. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not relevent to the purpose of this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment what a waste of energy this has all been. Surely the point of ITN/R is that its inherently notable for ITN, right? So early nominations are simply for kudos, for a little star or whatever on people's user pages. The only thing needed here, is to ensure the update was inline with the update requirements of the ITN criteria. That's surely a simple yes/no, perhaps with the suggestion of how best to improve the update to meet said update requirements. Instead we see veteran editors tearing each other up over something as trivial as the Superbowl. Come on Wikipedians, we can all do better than this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] You make this sound like blame is on both sides. That's not the case. Suggestions on how to improve the update (with references) were clearly outlined, and they were brushed off as if this was a conspiracy to exclude an item that is posted every year. I see multiple completely unfounded accusations of bad faith from those unhappy this wasn't up sooner, and I see no similar retaliation. We cannot allow such bully tactics to work, as doing so gives the appearance of a double standard. Oh, we'll post the Super Bowl with shoddy referencing because it's the Super Bowl, but an article about some event that doesn't pique the interest of American readers so much must meet the reasonable requirements set forth. No, that's not acceptable, and the insults thrown at David Levy (and, implicitly, me) were uncalled-for. It has nothing to do with the fact that a non-regular originally posted the item, although I would hope that most regulars would have recognized that the update was unsuitable at the time. That seems a bit unlikely, though, given how this discussion played out. -- tariqabjotu 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Tariq, you undid another admin's action without discussing it with them. You took the a hostile path, reversion, because you claimed to know better than them. How do you know that you weren't in error and that they weren't right? For the future it would be better to explain the problem you perceive to the other admin and jointly agree on the correct path forward. As for the ugly discussion that followed, you are the one who set that in motion, so please don't get all preachy. Jehochman Talk 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Tariq, looks like you need a break from this topic. I outlined the facts. (a) ITN/R meant Superbowl was going to be posted no matter what. (b) All that needed to be done was an update in accordance with the ITN criteria. (c) All the yelling and shouting and early noms and pointed comments here are a perfect demonstration of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. I accused no-one of anything. Take a break, come back when you're not feeling so aggrieved with the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Lay off Tariq. I don't always agree with him, and the entire discussion above is hilarious, but this "I am holier than you" condescension from his critics is tiresome and offensive. μηδείς (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Seriously, it's attitudes like that which are making ITN a laughing stock across all of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] I'm closing this down. As this has nothing to do with promoting the Super Bowl article to ITN, take this discussion up somewhere else. Or better yet, don't. --Jayron32 21:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] Liechtenstein parliamentary election

Nominator's comments: Elections! Everyone loves Lichtenstein elections, no? Technically ITN/R. In my opinion this is pretty borderline as to elections that really need to be posted (19,200 eligible voters), but we haven't had an election for a while. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no question, no possibility of opposing it. An ITN/R (result of parliamentary election in a sovereign state) and the article is adequately formatted and referenced. Any oppose would need to justify the removal of this kind of article from ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I've squeezed what little prose I can out of the two wire bulletins that seem to make up all the news that exists in English about this. Maybe postable? Otherwise we'll have to wait till some more new info comes out of Vaduz. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If anyone reads German, This list of Newspapers is likely to have more indepth coverage than anything in English. That should provide some additional sources. --Jayron32 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITN/R. Marked as ready. The minimum prose update is in the results section. --IP98 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lino Oviedo

• Support, although he is not so known. Because he was a presidential candidate.Egeymi (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not updated with five referenced sentences, and we need a source that says he was indeed a major party's candidate. If that's done this can easily be supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Candidates for office do not inherit notability from the office they run for. It's not clear how major Oviedo's party is. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Being a candidate for office shouldn't be a ticket onto ITN; otherwise any candidate for a high office, no matter how important, could get in. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, how often do presidential candidates die in helicopter crashes? μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of my father's favorite joke every time we drove past a cemetery. "You see that place?" he would ask. "People are dying to get in there." Somehow I doubt many presidential candidates, even of smaller countries, are dying to get into the Recent Deaths ticker at Wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How he died is not relevant. Should we put the US Presidential candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party or the USA Communist Party on the ticker if they die? There should be something other than the person being a candidate for office to get on the ticker. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Oviedo would be listed, if he were listed, as a major party national presidential candidate who died during the campaign. That is a rare and notable event. That is how he was nominated. What does his just being a candidate have to do with it? Are you suggesting he was just nominated just because he was a candidate? It is hard to take such contrarian comments in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by another user, it's not entirely clear he was a "major" party candidate. He clearly was nominated because he was a candidate; that's what the nomination says. If it was "331dot died in a helicopter crash", we wouldn't be here now. 331dot (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well one of us certainly wouldn't. GRAPPLE X 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the guy got over 20% of the vote last time he ran, which seems to make him major in my book. But no one seems to care to updtae the article, so the nominator's time seems wasted here, no? μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

[Removed] Syria sticky

Conflict is stalemated and weve had this on for a long time. I think its time to nominate individual items of notability lest it becomes a banner for the event. Should this be removed?Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal as a sticky. If we start to get a steady flow of notable events again, we can always restore it. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal of the sticky so that significant events can get a blurb. For example, the Israeli airstrike 3 days ago. --IP98 (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal of sticky. Time to move on, but things could get very active there, so let's be open to putting the sticky back up if a new stream of big stories comes along. Jusdafax 19:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. Things have been very active in the conflcit during the last two weeks. --hydrox (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed -- tariqabjotu 19:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose removal 30 dead in a carbomb in Al-Salamiyah on 21st, double carbombing in Golan Heights on 24th, 65 dead in a massacre in Aleppo and testimony in front of the UNSC that the conflict has reached "unprecedented levels of horror" on 29th, Israeli aistrike on 30th, UNHCR discovering 45,000 refugees in "appalling" conditions on 1st. These are just some of the big headlines in the last two weeks to emerge from the conflict. The removal of the sticky is not justified. --hydrox (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the sticky was ever reworded to reflect any of those events; and in a conflict like this one would expect such events to happen regularly. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but was the article being consistently edited to reflect these updates? Spencer^T♦C 04:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a timeline article with such NPOV headings as "Day of the massacre of children by the west" or something like that/ --IP98 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It does seem wrong to remove the sticky. The Israel attack for example shows that the conflict is not at all going into irrelevance. Thue (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Though drawn out, it is a significant on-going event.Kdammers (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick idea, we could have a permanent link to List of ongoing military conflicts, then post major war developments as regular ITN/C items. Unfortunately that's quite a poor-quality article at the moment. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a major problem with that article is that it uses a combination of different sources, mostly newspapers. But as defining a war is not straightforward, different sources are unlikely to agree on one definition, so maintaining an exact list of ongoing conflicts becomes difficult (what should be included, and what not). I started researching about how this situation could be improved, and found this Ontario, Canada based NGO that seems to publish a periodical report about ongoing conflicts and has written about how it defines an "armed conflict", but unfortunately their latest publication is more than a year old. Does anyone know if the UN publishes any similar list? The UN would seem like a natural source for such info. --hydrox (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles aren't being developed for these specific incidents, it's just being heaped into a timeline. It's a war zone, people are dying because that's what happens in a war zone. "A rocket hit an apartment complex" (thats from portal:current events). So what? It's a war zone. Nominate blurbs for major offensives or substantial milestones. --IP98 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.. So what is the relevancy of that comment to what I wrote above? I am talking about this article. --hydrox (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose unless you want to add list of ongoing protests, list of financial crises, timeline of environmental events, etc. There are lots and lots of ongoing issues, we can't have a bold link to every list of articles which might pop up in the news. What are we trying to fix here? --IP98 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, do you oppose the previous removal of the sticky or are you opposed to returning it to the page? Spencer^T♦C 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the second one. This thread has a bit of a subtopic going and I opposed the suggestion, but support removing the sticky. --IP98 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A car bomb exploded in Iraq yesterday, killing 23. The insurgency there is alive and well. Get a sticky going for that too? And for Afghanistan? How about Mali? Sudan? Gonna sticky every conflict with no end in sight? --IP98 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Posted] RD: Chris Kyle

Nominator's comments: Respected as the United States' most prolific marksman, shot dead at a Texas gun range. Unusual death related to guns and PTSD from combat. Individual meets ITN/DC #2 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I was just coming here to nominate this myself. It's the unexpected murder in odd circumstances of the most storied sniper in US Military history, making news well outside the US.
• Updated See diff. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Chief Petty Officer rank does not suggest that he was at the top of his field. "Respected" is highly POV. Gunman gets shot in place full of guns: doesn't seem the most unlikely killing to me. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with Kevin's reasoning. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Respected" was my word. NY Times source calls him "America’s deadliest sniper", Guardian calls him "US's most prolific marksman", ABC News source calls him "the most deadly sniper in U.S. history". I don't know enough about the military to know what to make of his rank, other than I wouldn't expect a sniper to be a general. He's got two Silver Stars, five Bronze Stars, and a number of other commendations for his career. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murders at gun ranges are rare. What in the world does his rank have to do with anything? He was undisputedly the greatest sniper in US Military history. Perhaps we are passing moral judgment on that fact? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His rank would indicate whether he met the first of the death criteria: I can't see that he does, nor either of the other two. Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He could meet ITN/DC #1 for his "significant contribution/impact" on the Iraq War and with his book. I think it pretty clearly meets DC #2 for his being considered one of the best snipers ever. He might meet #3 also, but I wouldn't make that argument personally. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, there seem to have been two snipers, a Soviet and a Finn, in the first half of the last century with more kills. Third in world history obviously meets ITN#2. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Chris Kyle who?.. Being an american sniper isnt of huge international interest. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to all the "who, what, I don't care" types: He was the most lethal sniper in United States military history. I think that pretty well covers ITN/DC #2. As for the "gunman shot in place full of guns", a range isn't a bloody free for all. Get real please. --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't get you. "Top American sniper" is significant, but "top Vietnamese musician" is not. In which universe is sniping more significant than music? DHN (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make pointy comparisons like that. Someone's previous (if you think it is invalid) oppose is not a reason for a current oppose. In any case, he seems to have been the third best sniper in the world, and his mere being American is not the reason for his posting. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Medeis. @DHN I might have been less inclined to support if Kyle had been in exiled obscurity for 40 years. --IP98 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per IP98. And as IP98 says, the "gunman shot in place full of guns" comments are ridiculous. Ryan Vesey 20:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• International Story This is currently the second story at Google News Germany Berühmtester US-Scharfschütze am Schießstand getötet, front page at Google News España El francotirador más letal de EE UU y ex 'Navy Seal', Chris Kyle, muerto a tiros and the number one Google News Italia story: Texas, ucciso in un poligono cecchino più letale d'America So much for "who?" μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Considering the international interest, and the exceptional nature of the event, would a full blurb be appropriate? Ryan Vesey 21:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really think the level of notability here is met - individual was not in any command position and his post-military career consisted of literary and media work that would not meet the DC. That said, I'd be perfectly happy to pretty much scrap the criteria for recent deaths and have the ticker speed through almost every decent article listed on this page. That's probably a discussion for somewhere else though. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Personally, I think the fact that he was murdered pushes him just over the edge of notability. For the guy who said "Being an american sniper isnt of huge international interest", I should also point out that his death has been given main page coverage on some major Canadian news sites like CBC (right now it is given the picture and blurb treatment which means they consider it significant), CTV and Canoe (right now it's the second top headline). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He was the most effective soldier in American history. His death warrants a mention, especially considering the unexpected circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbog (talk • contribs) 04:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready This is updated, the article has no tags. Sentiment is about 2 to 1 in favor of posting--and the opposes based on his rank, which is irrelevant to his accomplishment, and on lack of international cover, which is false, don't weigh against the support rationale. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan PM's vow on Islands dispute

Nominator's comments: I think it's worth of a front page given the growing hostility between the two countries. Kotjap (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A statement of policy in this ongoing dispute is not significant enough for ITN. I think we would need an actual confrontation, involving weapons fired or some other aggravating factor to get something about this ongoing dispute posted. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The dispute as a whole is notable, and should be posted in some form to ITN. While a political statement is not ideal for ITN, the important point is to post something about it. Thue (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We posted about it a couple of months ago. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't post something about this ongoing dispute for the sake of posting it; we should only post important, significant developments in it- and a statement of policy doesn't rise to that level, especially a statement that isn't really that surprising. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Political wind. Kevin McE (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am Japanese and it's more than important for us. The possibility of an armed conflict with that unnamable country (there have been flag burning and anti-Japan protests in China) is really scary. We never won anything with wars. Hope the U.S. supports us. Kotjap (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a major dispute. had it been a US dispute of similar size then we would feature it on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel exactly the same. If the dispute involved the U.S. it would be featured on the main page. Kotjap (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said it's not important; that's not the issue. There is no single event here to hang our hat on to have a blurb posted about this ongoing event. I'm American and I would oppose any similar event involving the US being posted(I opposed posting the attack on the US embassy in Turkey below). There was no armed confrontation, large number of casualties, or other aggravating factor here. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are disputed areas between the US and Canada and if President Obama told the military that the US would defend them at all costs, I would oppose such a listing without some aggravating factor. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Policy Statements simply aren't posted. We didn't post the recent US administration policy change about women soldiers on the front line, nor the UN report below for that matter. Comparisons with the US hurt rather than help the nomination. (Oppose) μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The statement is startlingly bold and is widely In the News. The article is quite good, though the update is one sentence, and is an enlightening read on what could become a flashpoint in a regional conflict that would draw other countries in. Also becomes a reason to build up armed forces in Japan, which is controversial in its own right. Jusdafax 23:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we get to the "flashpoint" or the armed forces build up, that would be worth posting. We're not there yet. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Just a policy statement. Similar to Cameron's recent declaration on the EU, in fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Speeches by politicians are a dime a dozen. Nsk92 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- I don't think I've ever supported a public statement before, but as Jusdafax says, this is "startlingy bold." Considering Japan's military history and the coverage this conflict has been getting across the world, I have to support this for ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I nominated this article under a different blurb a few days ago. This is a high-interest story given that the dispute has been at or near the top of international news for several weeks now. I know that we don't have a "sexy blurb" to go with any of the developments, but I'm willing to put that aside given that major news sources are giving this story attention, and the article is in decent enough shape. Given all of that, I think that I can't pose any objections to putting the dispute in some form on ITN, because it clearly is in the news. --Jayron32 02:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not seeing how recent events merit an mention in the article that meets ITN update standards. I think Senkaku_Islands_dispute#2013 says what needs to be said about what happened. I might be persuaded to support if there is enough relevant, notable information used to update the section, not meaningless fluff. Spencer^T♦C 03:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A policy statement. Not significant enough for ITN. NickSt (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's a statement, not an action. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just ordinary diplomacy. Nothing's happened yet. 75.62.130.32 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

US Embassy bombing Ankara

Nominator's comments: I don't know if it meets the "minimum deaths" but an attack on an embassy seems noteworthy. --IP98 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose I agree with IP98 in that attacks on embassies are generally noteworthy, but in this instance not much really happened. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I too agree embassy attacks are generally noteworthy, but the attack took place at the gate and did not harm anyone other than the deceased security guard. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Little impact. The headline indicates something that would have been really ITNworthy, had the staff of an American Embassy taken it upon themselves to bomb the capital city of a NATO member. Kevin McE (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Explosion at Pemex HQ

Nominator's comments: Currently unexplained explosion in a 54-storey skyscraper in Mexico City with large death toll, expected to rise, and many, many injuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The explosion occurred in the offices adjacent to the skyscraper, not in the skyscraper itself. Nonetheless, strong support, though I also recommend we wait until more details become available about the nature of the explosion, and once we can get a lock on the number of those affected.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, new update here suggests an accident occurring in a neighbouring building. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is all over the news here. Clearly a significant and so far mysterious incident. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the significance of the event; the current target article probably has the bare minimum of information for posting (5 sentences). Recommend posting this now, but this event is likely to generate its own article, and we can change the bold link when and if the article becomes worthwhile. The event is clearly significant enough for ITN, based on the prominence I am finding in reliable news sources. --Jayron32 15:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per AlexTiefling. 2013 Pemex explosion seems ready to go and is the article Google News is pointing to. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that article still needs expansion. Per Wikipedia:ITN#Updated_content, the 5 sentence expansion is the minimum requirement for an existing article, a brand new article about the event needs three full paragraphs of good content. The current article falls short in that regard. If this is posted the bold link should point to the main Pemex article. Once the article on the explosion is expanded past the minimum requirements, we can make that the bold link. --Jayron32 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending update agree that 2013 Pemex explosion is the right pick, and that it needs expansion. Unlike the TV news, WP can wait until multiple sources are pulled together and a more complete picture is available. It's not a race. --IP98 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and agree with IP98's comments above. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, the 2013 Pemex explosion article is currently incorrectly stating the explosion happened in the building. It needs an update, we definitely can't post until it reflects current thinking (i.e. that the explosion occurred in a neighouring building). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An explosion at the office headquarters of Mexico's state-owned oil company killed 25 people and injured 101 on Thursday as it heavily damaged three floors of a building, sending hundreds into the streets and a large plume of smoke over Mexico City's skyline [64] ? I read something about it being in an anex building, but it looks like it took out 2 floors of the main building in the process. --IP98 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the blurb's a little too long, and BBC are still reporting 32 deaths, not 25.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • When two major sources are reporting different numbers, the smaller number should be selected, appended with "at least" to account for any possible error. The BBC are not infallible.--WaltCip (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I should have clarified: Financial Times, Reuters, The Guardian, Sky News, CNN all say "at least 32". Perhaps you read something unintentional into my words, which were meant to imply the fact that Europe has been awake and aware of this story for the last eight hours while most of America hasn't. But thank you for your advice on how to write a blurb, I'll bear it mind hereafter.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously my scenario doesn't come into play if five different sources all say "32".--WaltCip (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Altblurb I have added an altblurb that sidesteps the exact location and links to the explosion article--which could use work, but is technically updated. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready? This should go up if there are no other issues, unless we want to be three or four days behind as we were with the Israeli elections and Pham Duy. One of the points of ITN is to link the reader to the article. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. Article has no major problems, widespread support. I've marked this as ready to alert another admin to post (I've voted so I won't post). Also, I would support the altblurb, it is more concise and easier to read. --Jayron32 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well as far as all the RS go, it wasn't actually at the HQ, it was near the HQ. Unless things have changed, the alt blurb (which was my original blurb) is incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At doesn't mean "inside the confines of". That would be "in". "At" can mean "in the vicinity of" just fine. It appears the explosion was on the grounds of the Pemex headquarters campus, though not in the specific skyscraper. That also meets the definition of "at" pretty well. --Jayron32 21:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your lesson. In any case, the new article is not great, lots of bare URLs and a whole unref'd section, we should not post this to the main page before it's resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've solved the problem with the unreferenced section. The other problem (bare URLs) is not an orange- or red- level problem, and as such is not a hinderance to ITN posting. That falls under WP:PERFECTION; the bare links are not ideal, but are sufficient. --Jayron32 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Marvellous work. Let's get it on. (I still think "at" the headquarters is misleading, it was "near" not "at", but if want to go with that, fine by me...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've solved your other problem as well. It wasn't that hard. --Jayron32 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • So very close to what I said all along. Double bingo. Post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re the bare links, for some reason I cannot capture the text to copy and paste from some of them, everything else I am working on, and can use some help rather than some more tags. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW "Near" is fatally vague, and "at" is perfectly accurate and idiomatic English. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but certainly not in British English. But in any case, keep the "at" when in actuality it was "near" or "next to". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough of that
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note, the piss poor referencing method has now been fixed, but some editors are insisting on inserting masses of unreferenced timeline text. Please stop that, especially now this on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Yes, when this was posted, the article was contradictory, halfway unreferenced and what refs were present were badly cited. C628 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Talk about piss poor, someone seems to have a bug up his ass about something, but the section referred to is fully referenced and the fact it was being worked on while the article was posted is not a good reason for such hostile and beyond the point comments being posted here after the fact. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Alrighty. That's enough. --Jayron32 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Ed Koch

Nominator's comments: Influential three-time major of New York. Not a former head of state, but New York is more populous than many nations. Did quite a bit after being mayor as well. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No far reaching impact, not in office at the time of death, not entirely unexpected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As far as mayors go, he's notable. He had remained politically involved even after serving in office, but he's no Ted Kennedy.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Mayor, you're no Ted Kennedy? GRAPPLE X 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently never having had a girlfriend, Koch was denied the opportunity Kennedy had to drown one in his back seat. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this? Are you commenting on Koch's sexuality and the Chappaquiddick incident? This is in no way constructive, and I see it as degrading and offensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an off-colour political joke that pokes fun at the Chappaquiddick incident and the notion that its significance bolstered Ted Kennedy's notability. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant cultural and political icon, his notability extends far beyond the mere label of his office. I understand that many people voting here may not have much memory of the 1980s and may not be Americans, but he was a major national figure during that decade. If you base your position solely by the name of the office he held, you completely miss the boat on this one, and are vastly underestimating the kind of national figure Ed Koch was. --Jayron32 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jayron, iconic figure, US Congressman, executive for 12 years of jurisdiction with greater population than Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand, or Israel, one of few US congressional and municipal figures recognizable nationally and internationally, brought great world city back from bankruptcy, responsible for NYC renaissance of 80's and 90's, and of huge reader interest for a non-sports, non-entertainment figure. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per μηδείς. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Iconic figure. DHN (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As Jayron32 noted, Koch was far more prominent and influential than his political titles suggest (and he remained so after leaving office). —David Levy 22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per reasons given above. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose under which ITN/DC category does he fall? Certainly not #1. #2 maybe? How? --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was certainly regarded as very important; the mayor of a city with a population larger than many states and some entire nations has a high profile and influence. People paid attention to what he said. His policies largely rescued NYC from its major financial problems of the 1970s. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post the election of the mayor of New York, or Tokyo, Mexico City, Beijing, Jakarta, Mumbai, etc. We didn't post the election of the first gay premier of Ontario, which also has a higher population than many countries (such as Israel mentioned above). We spat upon elections in an Indian state that had a population of above 100M. What happens when Giuliani dies? He was in charge on 9/11. I think this is a mistake. I don't advocate pulling it, but his only claim to fame was a beloved former mayor of New York. --IP98 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, Koch's impact exceeded the level typically associated with the elected offices he held, and he remained prominent via political and nonpolitical activities in the decades that followed. —David Levy 01:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As David said, that isn't his only claim to fame. We're also not talking about posting his election; I wouldn't support that- but his notability goes beyond that. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's little point in going on about this. Yes, Giuliani will be posted when he dies, as will Red Ken and Mayor Chirac. None of this should be shocking. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chirac vs Koch -- President of France vs notPresident of the United States. Not exactly apples to apples. --IP98 (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed the point wouldn't be obscure, the first mayor of Paris since 1871, a storied and controversial 18 years in office. He'd be postworthy on that alone, even if like Koch, Chirac was never president of the US. But if your intention is just to disagree with everything that is said it's not necessary; your discomfort has already been noted and the nomination is moot. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready This is updated [65] and there is consensus to post. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets ITN/DC #2 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Post- posting support - major figure, was even on the headlines on morning news in Canada. – Connormah (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]