Open main menu

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

January 31Edit


UN report on Israeli SettlersEdit

Article: Israeli settlement (talk, history)
Blurb: UN report says that Israeli settlers must be immediately withdrawn without preconditions, to comply with article 49 of the Geneva Convention
Alternative blurb: ​A UN report finds Israeli settlements in the West Bank in breach of the Geneva Convention.
News source(s): [1][2]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Blurb needs to be very carefully worded if this does get posted, I've tried to keep it brief and neutral EdwardLane (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Lean oppose. Is this really new news? The legality of the settlements has always been one of the primary disputes; now we just have some in the UN saying that(and I don't think the UN has ever held the opposing view). This almost certainly will not change anything on the ground there or Israeli policy. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's a report, not a binding resolution, but it does decree that the Israeli settlements are blatantly illegal. The fact that everyone knows this, and that Isreal has ignored previous resolutions doesn't detract from the significance here. A binding security council resolution declaring Israel in violation of article 49 and calling on the government to withdraw would be an easy support. Israel would still ignore it though. --IP98 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Some will find this startling, some won't, but it is a big international story In the News. Jusdafax 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Someone opines on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute" is hardly special. Especially when it comes from a political agenda-driven body such as the UN Human Rights Council. Resolute 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Lean oppose as per 331dot. There isn't much new encyclopeadic content as a result of this. --LukeSurl t c 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I disagree with Resolute's characterisation of the UNHRC, but I agree with the conclusion: this is still just 'a committee gives a non-binding opinion'. Not really news. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose How many divisions does the Pope have? μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Huh? What does that mean? --IP98 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
q:Joseph Stalin --LukeSurl t c 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't reflect a change in anybody's position, and it's unlikely to affect the facts on the ground. As linked in Israeli settlement, the UN Security Council took a similar position as far back as 1980. [3] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

January 30Edit


[Posted] Patty Andrews diesEdit

Article: The Andrews Sisters (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Patty was the lead singer and is the last survivor of a very successful group, known for "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" --SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Spencer. It's a tall order but I will try. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Signing off here. Sorry I didn't do better, Spencer. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries; you did a lot of great work on the article. Thank you for helping make it Main Page ready! SpencerT♦C 04:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, provided the article is fixed. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Sure - I don't doubt their notability, but after the savage beating we gave the Pham Duy nom further down the page...--WaltCip (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
A handful of people who think Vietnam is insignificant have given it a beating. It looks well-supported, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support the article does a very good job of covering how they pass ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Similarly unsure. As a group the Andrews Sisters are notable, but it's difficult to say whether this notability filters down to the individual members. Currently the death update for Patty Andrews is a single sentence. One good way I've found of assessing notability is to see if an ITN-quota update in relation to the individual's death reads well in the article, or if it clearly looks overdone. --LukeSurl t c 14:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what Patty complained about according to The New York Times, "Every time we got an award, it was just one award for the three of us.” -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, and in the news. A well-known musical figure for well over a half century. Jusdafax 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Iconic 40's figure with great influence on history of pop music. Once this is updated let's put both this and Pham Duy up. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 18:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull immediately I cannot understand how this can be posted with no extant article on the topic, which implies that there is a reduced or no notability at all. Note that there are many similar cases throughout history with separate articles (e.g. Brother Grimm, Brontë family, etc.). Furthermore, the number of articles on the English Wikipedia is sufficient to state that there must be an article on a topic to be featured on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The people you mentioned are noted for their individual contributions; the Bronte family never wrote books together, but books individually. Others, like the Andrews Sisters do have combined articles because they are notable for what they did together. See the Wright brothers: it's not like we wouldn't post them because they don't have individual articles (assuming they died recently). SpencerT♦C 18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ilf and Petrov also wrote a book together, but have separate articles.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Both of which are stubs that could potentially be merged to the central article. The point is that there are examples of both cases throughout Wikipedia, and I don't believe that removal from RD should be dependent on the existence of individual articles. SpencerT♦C 06:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Not entirely the removal should depend on the existence of article, but it should always draw a line of sufficiency on something. I opine that there is some notability beyond Patty Andrews, but it really strikes me that there is no single article about her.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Back in '67 the vote was oppose, since Maxene and Patty were still touring with a replacement for Laverne. In 1995 the vote was wait since editors didn't want two postings in a row. Well, last week the time finally came. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

South Korean satellite launchEdit

Article: Naro-1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​With the successful launch of Naro-1, South Korea becomes the eleventh country to perform an orbital launch.
Alternative blurb: South Korea conducts the first successful launch of the Naro-1 rocket, placing the STSAT-2C satellite into orbit.
News source(s): spaceflightnow.com, Yonhapnews

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 --Hektor (TCGE) 09:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support when updated. First orbital launch by any country is ITNR. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose blurb, but strongly support inclusion. The launch is significant, however whether it makes South Korea the "eleventh country to perform an orbital launch" is debatable because the rocket they used is mostly Russian. I would strongly advocate a more neutral blurb. I have added a proposed alternative to the template: "South Korea conducts the first successful launch of the Naro-1 rocket, placing the STSAT-2C satellite into orbit." --W. D. Graham 11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support concept of posting, but blurb should clarify that it was the first launch from their own territory, as they have put satellites into orbit using other nations' rockets previously. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support alt blurb. But if we can post SK getting a half Russian rocket up after the 3rd attempt, we can definately post Irans launch. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - SK already has a space programme - this is just a change of launch location and vehicle. And the original blurb is rather telling: being the eleventh country to attain a particular distinction isn't terribly notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • A "change of launch location and vehicle" is the whole point. They can now do it themselves instead of paying other nations to do it. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Event is listed on WP:ITN/R. NickSt (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Where is the original discussion for this archived, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You are certainly free to question this type of story's presence on ITN/R, but until it is removed from there this story can still go up assuming the quality is OK. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support we post more than 4 golf stories every year. Posting the 11th country to reach this status is waay rarer than the golf postings. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So you're telling me other stuff exists? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
There must be 1000 incorrect uses of other stuff exists links for every one time it's used correctly. Ryan Vesey 00:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: First orbital launch of a country is clearly significant. Ryan Vesey 00:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Naro-1#Third_flight still needs updating. The first line says "Plans for a third flight are underway" and the vast majority of the section details delays to the third flight. SpencerT♦C 05:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant, important, ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ready to post. Just agree on the blurb. For me, either is ok. --Tone 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Support the alternative blurb, though the bold link should probably be on the Naro-1 article. Modest Genius talk 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

January 29Edit


Kazakhstan plane crashEdit

Article: SCAT Air Flight 760 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 20 people are killed in a plane crash in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters

Article needs updating

 --Ks0stm (TCGE) 09:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support pending update I would say most commercial flight plane-crashes are significant enough due to their nature, so I would say this should be posted. What's going on with plane crashes in Kazakhstan? That's the second one in 2 months, and at least the third in the last few years or so. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 12:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment, recent death toll is given as 20 in the statement of the airline operated the flight. So blub should be modified.Egeymi (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You could have done that yourself by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I thought I couldn't. From now on, I will. Thanks.Egeymi (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the article gets extended. This is a moderately significant commercial plane crash, and while I agree that it's striking there have been so many in Kz lately, they aren't so plentiful that they can be treated as routine. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think a plane crash is intrinsically notable enough. This one had a relatively low death toll; news coverage seems very much below what we'd expect for an ITN item.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support- I agree with Anc516's general assessment that commercial plane crashes are significant. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. While tragic, I don't feel the death toll is high enough to post this, unless there is some aggravating factor (like the dead being all children, or the crash was due to a hijacking/terrorist act). 331dot (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Commercial plane crashes are notable. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't post bus crashes even if they have more than 20 victims. Unless something makes this crash interesting I don't see the point in posting it. Thue (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose This is a borderline case, but unless there is no other notable factor it fall on the side of not posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January 28Edit


Australian Open ResultsEdit

Why have these not yet been posted? Ksnow (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ksnow

The nomination and related comments are located at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_2013_Australian_Open. SpencerT♦C 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mali: Destruction of Ahmed Baba InstituteEdit

Articles: Ahmed Baba Institute (talk, history) and Battle of Gao#Destruction of shrines (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Northern Mali conflict, retreating Islamists burn the Ahmed Baba Institute.
News source(s): Sky News Al Jazeera

Nominator's comments: An update on the conflict in Mali, which seems to be reaching a decisive point. Also the loss of the institute, and the ancient manuscripts within, is of encyclopaedic importance. --LukeSurl t c 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support in general, though I would just have a blurb that states that a joint force has captured Timbuktu, and leave the aftermath to the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A lot of historical scrolls and manuscripts were destroyed in the burning. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the blurb? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Quite agree, should definitely be included in the blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant and important news item. Blurb could use a tweak. Loss of manuscripts, if confirmed, is major. Jusdafax 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until someone bothers with a five sentence update for at least one of the articles. Hint. Hint. Otherwise this will be three days old if it's ever posted. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Timbuktu Manuscripts might be the more pertinent article. By the nature of the fact this happened in Timbuktu, a part of the world synonymous with being remote, it may take a little time for reliable news sources to appear. --LukeSurl t c 08:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for notability. I agree with Luke that the article to be linked should be Timbuktu Manuscripts. The Ahmed Baba Institute is (was) a comparatively uninteresting modern building. The invaluable heritage is made up of the manuscripts. Currently there is an update of two sentences - a bit feeble. --RJFF (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update reports seem to be mixed on what has actually happened to the manuscripts/libraries.[4] As we definately do not wish to be later discovered to be wrong on ITN we should probably refrain from posting a story on the manuscripts now. The general status of the war however could be an item. LukeSurl t c 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to post this based on the support for the notability of the event, however none of the potential target articles has a sufficient update. If someone could do so, we could get this up on the main page. --Jayron32 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe a Mali sticky? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Eh, I'm not sure how perpetual the conflict will eventually be and if there are articles constantly being updated. Also, I'm not sure how feasible 2 stickies are, so we'd also need to decide if the Syria sticky still should be there or not. SpencerT♦C 01:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Queen Beatrix abdicatesEdit

Article: Beatrix of the Netherlands (talk, history)
Blurb: Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicates.
Alternative blurb: Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands announces that she will abdicate on 30 April. (proposed by Kevin McE)
News source(s): BBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: End of the reign of the queen. New King William IV of the Netherlands --Hektor (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Wait - This is still speculation at the moment. Wait for the evening to see if this is what she actually announces. --LukeSurl t c 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) (this comment is now out-of-date)
  • Wait - This appears just to be a rumour so far. Obviously support if the announcement is an abdication.(see below) Do not assume that the new king, if there is one, will use his given name as a regnal name. It's likely, but not certain. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok we wait. Please note however that the Dutch Prime Minister will have a television address to the Nation right after the Queen's so this speech by the Queen is probably about a most unusual matter. Hektor (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I think the speculation is probably correct. Abdication is something a family tradition with the Dutch royal family. But I wished to warn against pre-announcing anything ourselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's a thing that might be worth discussing now: what if she announces her abdication at a future date? Would we post now or wait until the official changeover? I'd be inclined to do the former (and maybe post again at the changeover if it's weeks or months away). --LukeSurl t c 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
My inclination would be to wait until the actual abdication date if it's not in the next few days. Given how rarely heads of state change in most monarchies, I expect we'll be posting any subsequent coronation as well, and three announcements for one event is probably overkill. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
My proposal would be to have one posting for the abdication announcement (i.e. now), and one posting for the coronation or oath of the new King. The first posting would highlight the former Queen, and the second one the new King. Hektor (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I think Hektor has a good idea here. --LukeSurl t c 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Support Hektor's plan. Particularly because Commons has several great photos. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Support Hektor's plan. People will be looking for the news now. We can run hers as the featured article on April 30. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Support the brief blurb highlighting the queen, and second blurb in April. -- Hazhk Talk to me 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed, neural. Was just watching the broadcast, indeed abdicating. Neural on posting or not. Abdication will be Queen's Day, April 30th. Fgf10 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Hektor's reasoning. Change of head of state is clearly a highly significant event. I also support Medeis' excellent suggestion of Queen Beatrix as FA on Queen's Day, rather than repeating the ITN item then. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support' per Hektor. Monarchs don't abdicate on a daily basis, so the announcement is ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: Without regard to consensus to post, the update, as of now, is a bit light. Could someone expand this before it gets posted? There's only 1 sentence of text in the "Abdication" section. Surely there's some commentary that can be cited or other reactions to the announcement to beef this up to the 5 sentences necessary? What about the rationale for her abdication? Something should be added to bring this up to minimum standards before we post it. --Jayron32 19:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support my alt blurb. Our (unfortunate) habit of using the historic present would otherwise imply that she has now stepped down. I suspect Charles will be propping up copies of the Dutch papers against his mother's cereal bowl in the morning. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: I've updated the section a bit with some info from my usual suite of major news outlets. It looks like most are running the same facts (probably using the same wire source), there's not been enough time for 'reaction' stories to be written. Someone who can read Dutch news could probably add more, but I think, with Kevin's altblurb, it's sufficient to go now. --LukeSurl t c 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Supportsince it is a significant event as argued above.Egeymi (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Any preference on images? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. No preference but quickly these two look good: File:Lula e Beatrix.jpg and File:Beatrix05.jpg. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The lady in the red hat. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - A minor thing, really, but should "30 April" be changed to "April 30"? That would make the date format consistent with the formatting in the OTD section. How does date formatting/ENGVAR usually work on the main page, anyways? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It has since been changed to "end of April", which of course is a better idea. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Iran sends monkey to spaceEdit

Article: Iranian_Space_Agency#Animals_in_space (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iran successfully sends a monkey into space.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable moment in Iran's space program, also marks the first safe return of a primate since 1993 (see here) --Droodkin (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support the addition of the topic, we've got work to do. First, wouldn't the launch be notable so an article should be created on it? If so, we should create that and use it in the blurb. I suppose sends a monkey to space would be the best option, but that article needs a lot of work. My impression from the article was that they are launching the same rocket like, which seems unlikely. Ryan Vesey 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if there is enough new information entering the encylopedia as a result of this news story to merit an ITN item. Reading the news stories apparentely it's a charismatic move, but of little technical significance. --LukeSurl t c 16:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
On cosideration oppose. While it may be the first Iranian monkey, gloabally speaking, sending a monkey into space isn't that new or significant, and this'll be just a snippet in the Animals in space article (if that). Technically speaking, while charismatic, this doesn't represent is not a particuarly significant technical development for the Iranian space agency, and thus the update to Iranian Space Agency is going to be slender (currently it stands at two sentences). All-in-all there has not been a sizeable enoiugh update to the content of the encylopedia as a result of this news story to merit an ITN posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update? I see it phrased in future tense under "animals in space", unless there is a different section I should be looking at? --IP98 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hahahahaha, for the love of all things holy underneath the eyes of God, we can't be serious? Really? This is not for the front page of Wikipedia, never mind actual newspapers. Simply not serious, important, notable, or credible a story. Utterly laughable that it's been suggested here, beyond a joke. Of course I oppose this - I'd be a clown wearing high-heels if I didn't oppose. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an actual argument, or just facile mockery? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I do have an argument. This is a comical novelty story of no importance. I can't begin to believe why we're even considering it. ITN is not here to publicise these kinds of self-generated "punchlines", (see our rightful objection to Occupy). ITN is not a news aggregator. It's certainly not Buzzfeed. This must be the best laugh I've had all year doktorb wordsdeeds 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You miss my point. I don't support this posting myself. But by opposing it with a witty set of ripostes instead of a measured argument, you make it less likely that the admin will take your point seriously. Even a much wittier reply than yours still comes off as 'I don't like it' if there isn't some useful substance there. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why my initial reason would be considered invalid. We consider whether stories are serious, important, notable or credible. This story is not serious, important, notable or credible. If I have to find whichever hundred or so policies are linked to those four things, I'd happily source them doktorb wordsdeeds 17:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll just go check to see if "monkeys in space" is listed at ITN/R, in which case there's no argument.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not all about your personal bugbear. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Nor yours. Stop bludgeoning me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Calling this valid nomination "not serious" or "credible" is a bit of a stretch, but I would question how significant a milestone it is. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a significant, newsworthy development. The update looks sufficient. --Jayron32 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - significant. definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - the "sufficient" update to the article looks like two short sentences, is that a "sufficient" update? Also, do we actually have independent evidence that this monkey did actually return alive and wasn't burnt to a crisp on re-entry or do we just take Iran's word for it, since clearly they wouldn't make anything like a successful "manned" space voyage up, would they? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair point. Are the more zealous types of ITN now suggesting we agree on everything which is reported by dubious regimes? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Despite a little sparring with Doktorbuk and Rambling Man upthread, I'm actually dead against this nomination. Sending helpless research animals into space is not the cutting edge of technology these days, and the fact that it's Iran that's done it, on the gazillionth attempt, doesn't seem to add a great deal to the significance. While national firsts can be significant, they aren't intrinsically so. Sending people into space (and getting them back alive) is a rather more significant achievement, and we should perhaps reserve national (and corporate) milestone announcements for such events. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Raises glass to Alex, tips hat and staggers off into the sunset... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • [stands up] I fully align myself to the statement made by the honourable gentlemen [takes seat] doktorb wordsdeeds 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm honestly sorry for having been snippy. No-one dies if we mess up here. I should take myself less seriously. Thank you both for being good-humoured. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries Alex. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it's a successful return, which is the real achievement. If it had been a one-way trip I would oppose. --IP98 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, you have independent verification of the "successful return" right? Not just the Iranian authorities saying it was a success? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, what? I didn't see the requirement that an get "independent verification". What does that even mean? --IP98 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
        • We now believe what the Iranian authorities tell us as part of their propaganda machine? So if North Korea reported that they had done the same, you'd just accept it? What does that even mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to derail the thread debating with you on the authenticity of the statements of the government of Iran. Is there, or is there not, a requirement for stores to get "independent verification"? The story has been reported in the Guardian and Al-Jazeera. It's a simple yes or no. Does the requirement exist? Yes or no. Kindly answer with a simple yes or no. --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
            • No requirement, but the blurb would therefore have to be changed to "...is claimed to have successfully sent...", because that's what the sources say. You could -- as Rambling Man here is doing -- therefore argue that the notability rests entirely on whether or not it actually did happen, which would require independent verification. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The primate travelled in a Pishgam rocket, which reached an altitude of some 120km. I wonder what this some means. There is no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space. Kármán line lies at 100km, but according to newer measurements boundary is at 118 km, and according to NASA at 122km. So, correct blurb would be Iran sends monkey to border of Space or Iran sends monkey to Thermosphere.--В и к и T 22:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Politics aside this has a lot of significance, it is a major achievement that only five countries prior have achieved (Soviet Union, the United States, France, China and Japan). From a geopolitical point of view this is could quite well have major implications. LightGreenApple talk to me 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Per LightGreenApple and also because it would make the ITN box a little less dour. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • opposePretty sure they simpsons already did it. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per LightGreenApple. News sources are just that, sources, and this is In the News. I also agree with those noting that the recovery is significant. Jusdafax 06:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral, more oppose Poopy Joe: We will always remember. This is one of those "Oh, that's cool" stories, but not really all that significant enough unless it was the first time an animal other than a dog has been in space, so if I'm wrong or if he did some kind of dance or significant scientific achievement while up there, I may switch to support. This would be a nice DYK hook. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 12:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- More 'cool news' than worthy of ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hoax Shame we didn't post this before the hoax was discovered, the correction would have been interesting.
  • Comment interesting that those who thought independent verification was unnecessary aren't here now to discuss this....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

January 27Edit


RD: Stanley KarnowEdit

Article: Stanley Karnow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5]

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DHN (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Notable reporter, author and Pulitzer Prize-winner. Even made Nixon's enemies list. Jusdafax 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support The article is a bit sparse, but as a subject matter is fine for RD. --Jayron32 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose no evidence in article body that he passes ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. He (or his works) had won multiple awards in a lengthy career. Clearly notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Did receive pulitzer for book but no other accolades, evince was at top of field, best seller... μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    His work (the PBS documentary) won several awards, including several Emmys, a Peabody, and some other awards. DHN (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but he was listed as a consultant for the documentary, not its writer or creator. Frankly, this and Pham Duy should be posted, since each is more notable than the blank space. Especially Duy's nomination where his primacy in VN music is undenied. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It was never part of the RD proposition that the threshold be lowered, nor that the RD list need be always displayed or filled. Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't get your knickers in a bunch, there is no such thing as absolute notability--it has always been a matter of the relevant relative application of the standards. If the standards were absolute the calculation would be a mechanical formula, no editors needed. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you can't reply with civility, Wikipedia is not the place for you. 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I evidently missed with my fourth stab at the tilde key last night, (Kevin McE)
  • Support He won the Pulitzer Prize. If that doesn't meet DC #2, I don't know what does. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There are quite a lot of Pulitzer prizes given out every year, far more than (for instance) Nobel Prizes, and they're only for work done in the United States. Making no comment on this particular individual, a Pulitzer prize does not, by itself, satisfy DC #2. --LukeSurl t c 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unready I have changed my vote to support, but this article is not updated by five lines of prose, or even two. It won't be posted, regardless of support, if it's not updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 World Men's Handball ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2013 World Men's Handball Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The World Men's Handball Championship concludes with Spain defeating Denmark in the final.
News source(s): Washington Post, Deutsche Welle, La Voz de Galicia, Univision

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This is listed as ITN/R. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I will be working on the update of the final in the following hours.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose only niche interest and niche impact. Not at all "in the news" in any major website I visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major team handball tournament. Listed on WP:ITN/R. NickSt (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given by Rambling Man. In addition, I will start a new section over on ITN/R to consider the removal of handball from ITNR doktorb wordsdeeds 18:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support re: notability. Almost all sport, and indeed most human activity (apart from death and taxes), is "niche" by some standard or other. I like that ITN occasionally links to mid-level "niche" encyclopaedia articles, as long as they're in good shape and we're not being ridiculous with the obscurity. Handball isn't that obscure - not that popular in the English-speaking world, but has a sizeable following in Central Europe and Scandinavia. Also an Olympic sport and this is the premier non-Olympic title in the sport. Article is lacking in prose at the moment however. --LukeSurl t c 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sadly, whether an individual editor "likes" something or not is entirely irrelevant. It's not "in the news", it's just ITN/R which clearly is not really on the money. Please, show me major news outlets covering this right now, i.e. show me where this is "in the news" for English Wikipedia readers to be interested in its inclusion in the ITN section of the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Here's one, pretty easy to find even with my limited German Der Spiegel. [6] As I said, Team Handball is really a Central-Eurpopean & Scandinavian thing, however one of our roles here is to attempt to compensate for the impact of language and cultural barriers. --LukeSurl t c 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I can see that, but it's like fifth level of Der Spiegel's website, not exactly prominent or "in the news", just being reported, just like Leigh Griffiths' shop-lifting accusations in Glasgow are being reported on the BBC website (and currently on the BBC news homepage....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral I really don't know what to think as it's not "in the news". The Washington post ran an article, but it's just an AP distribution. The Express Tribune and global post (whatever those are) ran a Reuters copy. China Daily covered an earlier match, but not this one yet (that I can find). Deutsche Welle ran an article. Ryan Vesey 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Quite so. And "newsworthiness" aside, the article has virtually no prose at all, it's just a list of results and tables. We held off on posting the Brazil nightclub fire which killed a couple of hundred people because it only had a few sentences of prose. It had more than this article currently contains.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree that there should be no posting without some decent prose. --LukeSurl t c 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole notion of ITNR as a free pass is problematic, and if this were a major news item surely we wo(uld see three major references from at least two countries appended to the template of this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I have just done that. SpencerT♦C 20:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Good work, Spencer. I am still opposed if it amounts to bumping other news at this point, which strikes me as a good deal more notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support While English-language news may not be featuring the handball championship as highly, Spanish-language and other international news does indeed feature it more prominently. (Searching "balonmano" gives results for Univision, Diario AS, and other mainstream international publications). SpencerT♦C 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • But this is "English Wikipedia" right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware that being an English-language encyclopedia precluded us from posting items of international interest. SpencerT♦C 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that the fact we have to delve into minor pages on mainly minor foreign-language websites is indicative of the newsworthiness of this item to our English-reading audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Univision is in no way a "minor foreign-language website". The fact that this is not covered by English-language media is a reflection that handball isn't an American or Commonwealth cultural sport (like cricket) as well as an example of systemic bias. SpencerT♦C 23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Rambling Man, you do seem to be suggesting that this being the English Wikipedia should imply some kind of language-bias in our coverage, because I have no idea why else you'd bring it up. And it's really not necessary to respond to every single !voter and comment on a thread. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your insight and advice, I'll be sure to look into following it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Dead-pan. I like it. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when it comes to international sports, it is less niche than NFL. Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • But it's not "in the news" is it? When Superbowl completes, despite the fact it's US-only, it really is in the news. Globally. Whether we like it or not. Unlike this minor sport and minor tournament, simply not in the news in the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • When Super Bowl concludes it's only "in the news" in the US media and very few others. We will see shortly if any prominent German, French, Russian, Spanish, or Italian medium informs about it. Your statement that handball is a niche sport with no coverage in the English-speaking world is worthless since most of the Russian, German, French, Spanish, and other-language media publish their news articles in English as well. Please don't tell me that the news must come from a medium based in a country where English is official language to be understood by an English speaker.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, so show me these major news outlets in English-language covering this event on the main sports page, or else it's not actually "in the news" is it? As for Superbowl being "in the US media and very few others", you know that's a complete lie, so you undermine your entire statement with that alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Assume good faith. Accusing people of lying is inappropriate and unhelpful. You are not going to get anywhere be adopting a confrontational and aggressive attitude. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I know for a fact that Kiril knows that the Superbowl is covered by most of the globe. Thanks for your advice though, I'll keep it in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support- Other news sources have never been a good source for significance. Otherwise we would have entertainment news on ITN the whole time. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, you want something that isn't in the news to be in our "in the news" section? Just goes to show how much work this section of the main page needs.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is updated with sufficient amount of prose to document the final. For those, especially The Rambling Man, complaining that this is a niche sport with no coverage anywhere, we have the ITN/R where you can demand its removal from the list and contest its ITN worthiness with all the arguments you have. There is simply no need to see someone persistently uttering the same argument to everyone who supports this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • ITN/R is a joke, as is demonstrated time and time again. We can't rely on those lazy "supports per ITN/R" any more. I'm not demanding its removal from ITN, I'm suggesting it's not worth being on ITN for any good reason, neither for some arbitrary ruling (ITN/R) nor its quality. No-one has adequately demonstrated that this is actually "in the news" apart from a few niche foreign-language websites. It's not suitable for English Wikipedia's main page by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • "I don't like it" is not a valid argument for ignoring policy, as you should know. If you don't like the policy that an ITR/R event automatically meets the notability criterion, then start a discussion at ITN/R about whether it should be changed. Judging by the number of people who complain about it here, if you actually did something about it at ITN/R you might well succeed. Neljack (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • If you chose to visit ITN/R you'd see that I've already suggested it (i.e. ITN/R) should be removed entirely. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Not only is it ITN/R, I think it clearly meets the notability criterion in any case. Handball is a major sport; just because it isn't where most editors live, that doesn't mean we should ignore that. Neljack (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • A major sport which is "not in the news" anywhere. Uh huh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's just untrue: it is in the news. Those of us who support the nomination have pointed you to various stories, but you dismiss them all seemingly because of your rather idiosyncratic views on which news sources count. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I mean really "in the news". Look above, I gave an example of a Scottish footballer who is "in the news" on the BBC homepage for shoplifting. Neither you nor anyone else here has really provided any evidence of this being covered in any real sense outside minor pages on minor websites. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready The discussion with the comments and votes appears to incline towards posting. Given the update we have, it's time for marking it ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Pretty lame to try marking your own nomination as "ready". Let someone else determine that given it's abundantly clear there's no reason for something that's "not in the news" to be listed as being "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. My understanding is that team handball is fairly popular in much of continental Europe--generally about a second, third or forth most popular team sport. That seems comparable to a sport like rugby (though I suppose Rugby is in fact the most popular sport in a handful of countries). I certainly think this should be the only time we feature handball. It certainly is true that among English speakers handball is a not viewed as spectator sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Australian OpenEdit

Articles: 2013 Australian Open (talk, history) and Victoria Azarenka (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Victoria Azarenka wins the Women's Singles and Novak Djokovic wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open.

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Standard ITN/R item. Despite Azarenka's win happening just minutes ago, the basic information has already been added to the relevant articles by keen editors. Just need the prose updates, which is usually quotes from post-match interviews etc. --LukeSurl t c 11:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per ITN/R. I also suggest to use the precedent and post the conclusion of the women's tournament immediately, and only update the blurb with the conclusion of the men's tournament tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we need a prose update in there somewhere? --Jayron32 04:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah. The best place is Day-by-Day summary here, since all the previous days have prose summaries. SpencerT♦C 07:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Wooh - who's gone crazy with the flag icons? Are all those needed in every section? And the schedule of play bare URLs. Are those needed too? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Just added the men's result to the blurb and moved this section to the 27 January listings. --LukeSurl t c 16:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major tennis tournament. Listed on WP:ITN/R. NickSt (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly internationally significant and newsworthy but as Lugnuts notes, the article needs some really serious work. Someone's gone ape with flag icons and bold text. We shouldn't simply "support" items because they're listed in "ITN/R". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? Nothing is more useful that a row of mindless "support, notable"'s on an ITN/R article, from people who haven't even looked at the article state! </sarcasm> Thue (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, once cleaned up a little. Also, I believe Djokovic is the first man in the Open Era to threepeat. That might be worth a mention in the blurb. Resolute 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now once the article has been cleaned up as per Lugnuts and Rambling Man also someone needs to read up on WP:OVERLINK, then come back and I will support, I also agree with Resolute with a change to the blurb. LightGreenApple talk to me 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: I've added prose for all the finals played on the Saturday and Sunday. Personally I don't think the overlink banner is needed or article is too linked to preclude posting. There's a lot of linking to players' articles, but that's pretty unavoidable given the nature of the article. --LukeSurl t c 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There are (by my rough count) a little more than about 1,600 wikilinks, including about 24 to Novak Djokovic and Li Na, 20 to Victoria Azarenka and 15 to Sloane Stephens this is not counting the links from the 1,046 flags on the page. LightGreenApple talk to me
That sounds worse that it is in practice. Most of that is names in tables, which looks perfectly fine - indeed if "only first entries" were wikilinked the tables would look patchy and messy. Otherwise players are linked the first time they are mentioned in each day's section, which is unusual but suited to the way people are likely to read the article, by jumping down to the day they are interested in rather than reading from start to finish. --LukeSurl t c 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it does sound worse than it is, try reading the prose on any of the days and you eyes get distracted by all the blue links, if it is going to be linked to from the main page it does need to have the duplicate links reduced, for example Novak Djokovic played 7 matches for an average of over 3 links per match. LightGreenApple talk to me 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I guess we remove all the wikilinks from the day-by-day prose. I'm afraid I'm off to work now, so I'll have to leave that to someone else. LukeSurl t c 08:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Previewing changes for a section, I really think we make the article worse, not better, by removing these links. Can we get a third opinion on this please? --LukeSurl t c 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. Removed lots of excess prose links except in their first occurrence, but left the ones that appeared in separate tables/charts as suggested by WP:OVERLINK. Otherwise, the article is updated. SpencerT♦C 05:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kiss nightclub fireEdit

Article: Kiss nightclub fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 245 people are killed and 200 others are injured in a nightclub fire in Santa Maria, Brazil.
News source(s): BBCCNN

Article needs updating

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support (when the article is sufficiently expanded). This is eerily similar to The Station nightclub fire, but with a far higher death toll. I was unable to find a list of the deadliest nightclub fires worldwide, but it appears that few have claimed this many lives, particularly in recent years. —David Levy 13:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant loss of life. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A horrible, devastating event, and one which (so sadly) fits our criteria for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Terrible event. Agree with doktorb. --Droodkin (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when expanded There's about 4 lines of prose so far. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Mass casualty event. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - major international media coverage. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support Very tragic event. I have never heard about a deadlier disaster happening in a nightclub.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly significant death toll. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but strongly prefer original blurb (and article name): the name of the (former) nightclub is not to the forefront of the reporting. Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support notability re: all above. Article meets minimum standards at the current time, best not to over-expand while story is still breaking. LukeSurl t c 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Pham DuyEdit

Article: Pham Duy (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 DHN (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Support I'd like to support but a) international coverage is currently lacking and b) the article is in fairly poor shape, several unreferenced paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    Here's the first (of many, I'm sure) English-language coverage of his death. Considering that the LA Times covered his son's death last month, I wouldn't be surprised if they cover his death on Monday. As for "international", so far we've had coverage from Voice of America, Radio France Internationale, BBC, and Radio Free Asia, admittedly all in Vietnamese, but I'm sure given some time they will trickle over to English. DHN (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    Here's his obituary in the LA Times. DHN (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    That's point b. The article still needs better referencing (point a) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    Changing to support. On second consideration there's no need to push for every paragraph to be referenced. This isn't DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Those of us who are not familiar with the genre, which will be the vast majority of readers and editors, will need a lot more evidence before we could consider supporting. Writing 1000 songs that are short, forgettable and make no impact on anyone is not a great achievement. Has he won major recognition? Are his songs verifiably among the best selling of their genre? Are their multiple works that discuss his importance in the culture? Was there any official response to his works when they were de-banned in 2005? Can only oppose until we are given grounds to do anything else. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    Admittedly he is not well-known outside of Vietnam, but within the field of Vietnamese music, he is a towering figure (alongside with Van Cao and Trinh Cong Son) in terms of influence and popularity. He is a household name throughout Vietnam. Within an hour of his death, virtually all major Vietnamese-language news sources had updated to put news of his death on their front page. DHN (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    That's sadly not going to convince many about his importance (don't forget the squabbles when people they are familiar with come up...) I doubt if Chrisye's death had been in the past month an RD would have had support, and he may be of comparable standing (in Indonesia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    To give you an idea of his influence, consider this scholarly article written almost 10 years ago charting his career, and here's an article in the LA Times about 20 years ago profiling him. DHN (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
All UK news sources will have given prominence to the death of Clive Dunn within hours of his death, but popularity is not the same as importance. Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Much like Crisco 1492, I would like to support this, but I'm not convinced Vietnamese music is a broad enough field to post notable figures from. If it was music in general, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    He is not just an important figure in Vietnamese music, but an important figure in Vietnamese society, period. You can see this by looking at any Vietnamese-language news source now, almost 2 days after he died, it's still front-page news (they've moved on to people's reactions, tributes, and details of his funeral). DHN (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    Here's from a news story from Ghana [16]: "he was was both a divisive and unifying figure among Vietnamese". DHN (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A top artists in one of the world's largest countries (larger population than any in Europe save Russia) with articles in 12 languages. The article needs an update and is still in the present tense, however. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no impact outside of Vietnam. Wizardman 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You may want to look under the Please do not section above where it says "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." μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support- Considering we post top musicians in smaller countries like the UK, his death should certainly be enough for RD, and I would argue maybe a full blurb as well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is remotely close to what we would consider suitable for a full blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Any particular reason why? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose No evidence of even the smallest level of international significance. None of the songs mentioned in his article have their own articles. Ryan Vesey 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Lack of English-language articles doesn't mean that they're not notable, especially since those who care and know most about his work typically don't know English. In the Vietnamese Wikipedia there's an entire category for his works. DHN (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I never suggested that they're not notable, I suggested that he's insignificant to those reading this encyclopedia. If he was significant, someone would have written the articles. Ryan Vesey 23:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated The article now reflectes the past tense and meets the five-sentence update requirement. I call on an admin to use discretion and consider posting this. The nominee clearly meets the requirement that he be at the top of his field: "He is considered one of the great musicians of the new musical VN with a massive number of tracks as well as diverse genres..."[17] The opposes above ("I haven't heard of him", "not notable outside one country") are clearly in violation of the guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Where has it been established that he meets any of the criteria for including deaths? Where is the consensus that people are satisfied that he meets them? Kevin McE (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that when Trinh Cong Son (a composer of similar stature) died, his funeral was attended by thousands of people [18]. I'm sure Pham Duy's funeral will be as big, if not bigger. DHN (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Who has said "I haven't heard of him" or "not notable outside one country"? I'm not seeing either of those quoted phrases in any of the opposes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (S)he's paraphrasing and conveying the gist of the opposes... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"I haven't heard of him" wasn't the gist of anything in this discussion. No one has said anything close to that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "he's insignificant to those reading this encyclopedia" looks suspiciously like "nobody speaking English has heard of him", which is decidedly Anglocentric. One need not speak / read English to be highly significant within one's country. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the fact that all of the sources provided are in Vietnamese, including the BBC article, suggests a lack of importance to the English speaking world. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    His son's death last month was picked up by the LA Times, so it's a matter of time before the English-language sources pick this up. It's less than 24 hours since he died. DHN (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
    I see SYSTEMIC BIAS has become SYSTEMATIC BIAS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    Here's his obituary in the LA Times. DHN (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Do I have to mention yet again that this is Wikipedia in English, not Anglophonopedia? The fact that the sufficient, reliable sources are in Vietnamese is no obstacle to their relevance. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support More inclusiveness is more better. --Jayron32 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Our death criteria are very clear. This has no international impact, and this was not an outstanding musician. Ergo, no post.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • FWIW, ITN/DC also states that "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region," which he does pass the second part of the criteria. If one of the criteria was met, it can be considered. –HTD 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • With sources like this proclaiming him to be "the most important Vietnamese musician of the 20th century" and numerous sources proclaiming to be "one of three most influential", your claim that he was "not an outstanding musician" sounds trollish to me. His death received international coverage, as shown through The LA Times, VOA, BBC, RFI, and Radio Free Asia. DHN (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Article seems to suggest a fairly important individual in his field. Decent article quality as well. Can't see what we lose by not posting to the ticker, it's not like we're pushing another entry off. Simple question: is the main page better or worse for linking to this article? Sure, for cultural and language reasons, 99% of people are going to think "eh, who's that?", but then they can click the link and read a decent encylopeadia article, showcasing Wikipedia's ability to cover topics from all countries, languages and cultures. Or we could just have some white space.
(tl;dr version: it'd be a posting that helps the project, if it doesn't meet criteria, criteria be damned) --LukeSurl t c 17:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment, Luke.
The nomination meets or exceeds all criteria. It's updated, sourced, well-written; Duy meets the best in his field criteria. We don't even have a pending discussion on removing Vietnam from ITN because it's so foreign. An admin should use reasonable judgment and post this. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready Not sure why this was re-marked not updated after it was. Marking ready given changes of votes from oppose to support and no opposition based on invalid reasons per guidelines.
  • Oppose per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    Are you claiming that the deceased was NOT "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", or that the field of Vietnamese music is not significant enough? If it's the former, you obviously haven't read the article. DHN (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    The second. --IP98 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    Vietnamese music is not significant but Irish poetry is? DHN (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    You haven't seen the very easy posting on some Gaelic sports guy. –HTD 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    LOL this should be overridden if someone says "support" per ITN/DC #1-B. Which I will. Support per ITN/DC #1-B. –HTD 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    LOL this should be overridden if someone says "in what way did he have a significant impact on the region", which I will. --IP98 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
    LOL the links DHN supplied to us? –HTD 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    LOL I read the article end to end, it doesn't explain how he passes ITN/DC #1-B. LOL update the article. LOLZ! --IP98 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    LMAO the death section has 4 references, and the LA Times calls him "Vietnam's most prolific songwriter", "captured the strength of his people through years of turbulence" isn't enough to demonstrate his lasting influence? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL –HTD 04:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
    Also from LA Times: "was considered the most famous composer of popular Vietnamese songs". DHN (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Highly notable in his field and important to a large nation with a considerable diaspora. — Kpalion(talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment looking at some other large wikis, it's in the huge recent deaths section of es, but is not on fr, de, nl or ru. As best as I can tell, it.wikipedia.org doesn't have an ITN section. Looking at other wikis in the region, it's on vi.wikipedia.org (obviously), but id.wikipedia.org and ms.wikipedia.org do not have it. *shrugs*. FYI only. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think this applies for most deaths that we post in the ticker (not full blurb). Dennis O'Driscoll, whom you supported for RD, didn't even have an article in any other language besides English. DHN (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article's traffic over the past several days jumped from virtually nothing to more than 1000 per day without even being on the front page. The Vietnamese article peaked at about 11k per day. DHN (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I can't actually think of a single more famous living Vietnamese person, actors, film directors, writers, politicians included. @User:IP98 I realise that a songwriter makes more difficult cultural transit than a novelist (who can be translated) but Pham Duy can't pass notability for "in the News" then there probably needs to be a note "non-English-language musical artists can never be candidates for in the news, even if they are the most famous there is their country" and that would save wasting time with nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Thought I'd posted this earlier. Kpalion has it right: large nation, large diaspora, large creative field. Overall effect: large. Can we post this now, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 18:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

January 26Edit


Port Said clashesEdit

Article: Port Said Stadium disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 22 are dead in Port Said, Egypt in clashes following sentencing 21 to death over 2012 stadium disaster.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Both the sentence and the death toll are significant. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - Wow I've never seen any court simultaneously sentence so many people to death over one incident. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - There is a nomination below, with unanimous support, for the wider 2012–2013 Egyptian protests. That article contains a little text on this incident. This, that, or a combination of the two, I believe we should be posting something Egypt-related as soon as possible. LukeSurl t c 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Combine Yes, something like Protest riots in Port Said and across Egypt kill dozens. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Czech presidential election, 2013Edit

Article: Czech presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Miloš Zeman is elected the next President of the Czech Republic.
News source(s): BBC

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Support with change to "is elected" per precedent. - filelakeshoe 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted and fixed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
We are waiting for the remaining 0.08% of votes. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
All results counted and added to article. - filelakeshoe 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • posted per ITNR and article condition. --Jayron32 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Kathleen WynneEdit

Article: Kathleen Wynne (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kathleen Wynne was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, making her the premier-designate of Canada's largest province. She will be the first openly gay head of government in Canadian history.
News source(s): http://www.thestar.com/breakingnews/article/1320567--kathleen-wynne-is-ontario-s-new-premier

Nominator's comments: First openly-gay leader of a Canadian province, and of Canada's largest province with a population of over 10 million. --Nbpolitico (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is minutiae in a non-national election. It's nothing distinctive nowadays, considering we have lengthy lists like List of first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada and List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. Also, the nation is Canada. I would consider an item like this if it occurred in Uganda, for example. SpencerT♦C 02:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "First gay"... is getting kind of old. When she's elected Canadian Premiere we'll list her regardless of her love interests. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose only elected as provincial head, and her being gay doesn't add any more importance to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Subnational elections aren't notable enough for ITN; if this was for Prime Minister of Canada, it would be notable and get posted simply for being PM; being gay would be a bonus(in terms of ITN). 331dot (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – a huge milestone for Canada and Ontario. Not only is she the first gay premier in Canada, she's also the first female premier of Canada's most populated province. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A little local curiosity, and not for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 04:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- We didn't even post the last time a country allowed gays, so this isn't so big. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

January 25Edit


[Posted] 2013 Uribana prison riotEdit

Article: 2013 Uribana prison riot (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 50 people are killed in a prison riot in Barquisimeto, Venezuela.
News source(s): BBC, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Violent deaths of dozens of people. --LukeSurl t c 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: Exceptionally violent actions. Covered in mainstream international, English-language media. --RJFF (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support Article meets the bare minimum with regards to size, it would be nice to see some expansion if possible, but as this meets minimum standards (per prominent coverage and no major problems with article) I don't see why this couldn't be promoted to MP. --Jayron32 17:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean how this meets the bare minimum, which for standalone articles is "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" as per WP:ITN. The article has the references, but does not have three complete, well-formed paragraphs. SpencerT♦C 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Article has been updated to my satisfaction. Striking the weak part. --Jayron32 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and Updated. The article is now well updtaed, meeting the three paragraph and five sentences requirement. The event, with over 50 deaths, is quite notable for a developed country. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. Article updated, consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

French court orders Twitter to divulge identity of usersEdit

Articles: Censorship of Twitter (talk, history) and Internet censorship in France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following several antisemitic and racist posts, a French court orders Twitter to reveal personal information about its users.
News source(s): [19], [20], [21]

Nominator's comments: Somewhat of a minority topic (Tech news and the law), showing up on top tech news sites like ZDnet and tech pages of other major news sources. --Jayron32 00:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Implications of international import. Especially significant for Wikipedians, in my opinion. Jusdafax 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with jusdafax. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Can someone explain to me the difference between this and the fact that Google was ordered to do the same 14,116 times just last year alone? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't see that there is a difference of principle between this and subpoenas or warrants directed to other internet companies (ISPs, search engines, etc) for information about their users. As story about Google indicates, they are common. Neljack (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose At no point was twitter immune to such subpoenas or warrants. Why would anyone think they were? It is not news. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Just as a point of information, Twitter has no employees or offices in France so it is not entirely clear this can even be enforced. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose All I am seeing in this is just a regular court issues subpoena to internet company, is there a reason to think that this is Twitter's first such subpoena, I doubt it. LightGreenApple talk to me 10:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose From what I've heard, Australian courts have ordered several social networks to perform certain tasks as a result of hearings for years. I don't see how this is any different, and I doubt Facebook will appeal or refuse to provide the information upon request. They've always complied with requests. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I don't really understand the support votes. This is only in France, so not of international import. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone OswaldEdit

Article: 2012–13 Australian region cyclone season (talk, history)
Blurb: Tropical Cyclone Oswald makes landfall in Queensland and causes widespread flooding.
News source(s): [22], [23], [24]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While storm was not extremely "strong" by cyclone standards, it does appear to be causing widespread damage in Australia. --Jayron32 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The coverage of the cyclone making landfall is not even wide in Australia. There's just been some flooding in and around a few areas with most of the damage cost deriving from crops. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Due to the most recent reports I've changed my vote to neutral. Usually the natural disasters we post involve loss of life in the tens or even hundreds, we shouldn't post events just because it affects a developed nation. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No deaths, and the storm doesn't have its own article, but what we do have describes it as weak. 22:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)~~
    • More coverage now, and unfortunately one death has just been reported, and it seems the situation has deteriorated as there was a "statewide catastrophe declaration from the Insurance Council of Australia", see Brisbane Times report: [25]. Some dams ie. Awoonga Dam are apparently at breaking point. - 220 of Borg 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
      • One death could be the result of a small thunderstorm or a passing fog. Unfortunately the Awoonga lake article is written from a solely Australian standpoint, mentioning things like AHD and hectares without conversion or explanation, so as a foreigner I am unable to tell whether the dam's failure would be significant or not. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

North Korea missle tests and threatsEdit

Article: North Korea–United States relations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Tensions increase between North Korea and the United States as North Korea threatens the U.S. and South Korea with nuclear attack.
News source(s): [26], [27], [28], [29]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: News over the last several days regarding North Korea's threats against the U.S. and South Korea has been fairly prominent. --Jayron32 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: Specifically per the North Korean government stating "Sanctions' mean a war and a declaration of war against us." Question, did we post this, when North Korea threatened to destroy South Korea soon? Ryan Vesey 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a non-event, a pretty empty threat considering North Korea's current nuclear capability, and it doesn't look like anything more than the usual North Korean posturing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The New York Times article states that US intelligence estimates say North Korea might be able to reach Hawaii and has plutonium for 6-10 boms. While it might be a threat that won't be acted upon, it's no longer empty. In addition, this was the first time they explicitly threatened the United States with a nuclear attack (it had previously only been implied. Ryan Vesey 00:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
At best, they could possibly hit Hawaii with an empty missile. I don't think they're close to producing a nuclear warhead small enough to be deliverable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • " I don't think they're close to producing a nuclear warhead small enough to be deliverable." - Citation needed, for this piece of OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
[30] --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This latest round of rhetoric is nothing new from them; not noteworthy unless there is an actual nuclear test or another missile test. 331dot (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment, if this escalates to more than just rhetoric then come back. LightGreenApple talk to me 10:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until North Korea actually decides to drop a nuke on the U.S. or South Korea.--WaltCip (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Extreme speculation. I regularly read the KCNA website, and they are always threatening war. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Five dead, 335 injured in Egypt protestsEdit

Article: 2012–2013 Egyptian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Protests across Egypt leave five people dead and at least 335 injured.
Alternative blurb: Protests across Egypt result in widespread injuries and deaths.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Protests in several cities across Egypt; tens of thousands of people in Tahrir Square, several hundred injured and five dead. C628 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Fatalities on this scale are pretty significant. Make sure the totals are checked for currency before posting, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I am seeing this prominently across many news sources, and the article is in good shape. --Jayron32 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Egypt is a key player in the Middle East, and this kind of event is major. Jusdafax 01:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Large number of casualties in a major event. 331dot (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The sheer number of people implicated in this is enough to convince. Let alone the fatalities. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: Deaths up to seven now: [31] --Jayron32 04:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Very significant this major event shows, unfortunately, that nothing has changed.Egeymi (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but protests are basically continual now, [32] with 16 deaths has happened between this nomination and now (I've added some prose to the article). As such I've suggested an altblurb that is less specific about numbers, such that the blurb won't be made out-of-date by future events. LukeSurl t c 12:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked as Ready as this seems to have both the support and article quality necessary to make the main page. I've voted, so I am ineligible to promote it myself, but hopefully another admin is watching and will put this up. I also suggest the altblurb as the situation is dynamic and leaving off the numbers seems prudent right now. --Jayron32 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

January 24Edit


Confrontation in Senkaku Islands disputeEdit

Article: Senkaku Islands dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Japan Coast Guard ship engages a Taiwanese ship carrying activists bound for the Senkaku Islands.
News source(s): [33] [34] [35]
  • Nominated by Jayron32 (talk • give credit)
  • Updated by [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] ([[User talk:Jayron32|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:Jayron32|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BSenkaku+Islands+dispute%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Senkaku+Islands+dispute&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The Senkaku Islands dispute has heated up considerably in the past few weeks, and this is just the latest incident in a string of incidents that includes threats by both Japan and China to use military force to enforce their respective claims to the area. --Jayron32 22:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC) --Jayron32 22:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I'm not convinced this minor confrontation is enough to get this ongoing dispute on ITN; only water cannons were used and no one was hurt. If there was a more intense confrontation, such as the use of arms to halt a ship or injuries, then I could see this getting posted. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with 331dot doktorb wordsdeeds 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Water canons are fairly common in this dispute. When reading the blurb I though actual rounds were fired, when that happens, we can post it. Ryan Vesey 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Only water canons were used so if this to be posted in needs to be rephrased ("engages" in particular) to show only nonlethal force was used. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

David Headley sentenced for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacksEdit

Article: David Headley (talk, history)
Blurb: David Headley is sentenced to 35 years in prison for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks
News source(s): [36] [37] [38]
  • Nominated by Jayron32 (talk • give credit)
  • Updated by [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]] ([[User talk:Jayron32|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:Jayron32|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BDavid+Headley%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=David+Headley&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major terrorist attack, conviction and sentencing of a significant player in that attack. --Jayron32 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose The verdict is not surprising, the principal is not that notable and certainly not at the top of his field. Hate to oppose two noms in a row by the same person, but this is just not incredible news with a high reader interest in a great article. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Effectively "news in brief", this is an afterthought which has no place on our front page doktorb wordsdeeds 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From what I gather, this individual was not the mastermind of the attack or otherwise had some sort of leadership role; he seemed to be more of a functionary figure who just scouted things out. As Doktorbuk said, essentially this is just an afterthought. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I'm discussing over on WT:ITN, posting this story would be far preferable to leaving ITN un-updated (it's been four days since an update). However the arguments above are fully in line with our standard practices here. I think this shows that are current practices are in need of serious revision. LukeSurl t c 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Stories should be posted because there is a consensus that they are notable; they shouldn't just be posted for the sake of posting one. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If we are in a hurry for an update, the Israeli Election article has been abundantly updated and is an ITNR item. But perhaps letting it age is the better course? μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combatEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): BBC

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose this seems a little overblown (some of the coverage, not the nom). Plenty of women have been in so-called support roles. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a policy issue, not a legal development, and not one that lends itself to featuring a relevant good article readers are looking for, which is the point of ITN. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not strictly opposed to the idea per se, this seems like a newsworthy event to me, but any relevant articles, either women in combat or women in the military by country are in pretty rough shape, and by the time they were cleaned up to anything of the standard we usually post here, it wouldn't be timely news anymore. --Jayron32 04:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing nominated, nothing to support doktorb wordsdeeds 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor domestic policy change that has little global significance. LightGreenApple talk to me 08:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As said by others above, this is just a government policy change; if it was Congress passing a law directing such a change, that might be noteworthy enough, but this is just DOD Secretary Panetta starting a policy change(which will take time to go into effect) that a future POTUS and Secretary could change back. Also no article nominated. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LittleGreenApple. There is simply no major impact beyond this story. It sounds interesting and amusing indeed, but definitely not a news that bears much notability at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I understood, this is mostly a technicality as women have been allowed to serve even before. And anyway, there is nothing revolutionary about women in military. Cf. Israel Defense Forces, for example. --hydrox (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

January 23Edit


RD: Dolours PriceEdit

Article: Dolours Price (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [39]

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 GRAPPLE X 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Surprised this wasn't already suggested. Prominent IRA member (Old Bailey bombing, high-profile hunger strike while in prison), key figure in the international dispute about Boston College's oral history of the Troubles (so I'm sure a few of the Americans will have heard the name). GRAPPLE X 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Article: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): BBC

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


DNA as information storageEdit

Article: DNA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists successfully use DNA as a means of data storage.
News source(s): [40], [41]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Published in Nature yesterday, reported in WSJ today. Science and technology are an underrepresented topic for ITN, interesting cross-disciplinary topic. --Jayron32 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose no doubt this report belongs to Nature, but I really don't see the actual potential for actually being relevant to the public since DNA is a very un-atom-economical way to store information. Plus, a book has been encoded as DNA before. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: how can this feat be crowbarred into DNA without being WP:RECENTISM? It's just another nanotech use for DNA. Modest Genius talk 20:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is somewhat interesting ("Oh, neat") from a science point of view, but has long been discussed and the actual achievement, rather than being a huge practical advance, is instead rather academic. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with above. It's very curious. It's not front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 21:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't a new discovery, simply a different use of one; DNA has been encoded for other purposes before(such as a book). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Józef GlempEdit

Article: Józef Glemp (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox News

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Cardinal Glemp served as Primate of the Catholic Church in Poland for 23 28 years, including the turbulent times of Solidarity, martial law, and transition to democracy and market economy. He was one of the most influential clergymen in a country where the Catholic Church is still a powerful force. --— Kpalion(talk) 23:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as the fourth most notable Pole of the 80's (behind Walesa, the Pope and the tyrant Jaruzelski--politically, if not morally) for those not too young to remember him. One of the last important Cold War figures. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD ticker. --Jayron32 04:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Internationally known and influential cleric. Notable enough for RD at any rate. --RJFF (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready? Is there some outstanding issue that would prevent this from being posted? μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let me just add some references to the Biography section (the first 5 subsections are completely unreferenced). SpencerT♦C 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

UK vote on withdrawal from the European UnionEdit

 --RA (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Promising" a referendum is way too far away from a referendum passing. If we post this, we'd be posting the approval of the referendum as it heads to voters too. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    Promising the referendum is the news event here. It is significant enough by itself, as evidienced by the news coverage of just the promise of one. --RA (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The blurb is incorrect on numerous levels. We've not left yet, there's no referendum act, there's no discussions with the EU yet. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    The blurb doesn't say the UK has left. Or that there is a referendum act. Or that discussions with the EU have taken place. It says that David Cameron has promised a referendum on UK withdrawal from the EU.
    To quote the WSJ above:

    "U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron Wednesday pledged to hold a referendum on whether the country should remain a member of the European Union within 2½ years of the next general election, which is due in 2015."

    Or the Guardian headline above: "David Cameron promises in-out EU referendum". That's what the blurb says. --RA (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Politicians promise this and that every day. No referendum yet - no reason to post it yet. - Rex (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Big news, and of international import. The Cameron statement is quite notable and ITN-worthy, in my view. Jusdafax 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • How? Why? It will take a year, at least, before we know what (if anything) he will ask the EU to repatriate. It will take until 2015 to know if he is still Prime Minister. Most of your reasoning falls foul of CRYSTAL doktorb wordsdeeds 23:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It might be noteworthy if the referendum was actually scheduled, but promising one is a long way from that. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Huge news in the UK, but nothing has actually happened yet. ITN will (would?) certainly post the referendum itself. So far Cameron has simply announced his intention to fight the next election on a manifesto which includes a promise of a referendum. That's a long way off; it may well (hopefully imo) never happen. Modest Genius talk 00:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the referendum is actually being held and they do indeed withdraw. --RJFF (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN shouldn't be covering campaign promises. The actual referendum itself, should it come to pass, would be a good fit, however. Resolute 00:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not even government policy, as the PM's coalition partners are against this move. This is just a manifesto pledge for a far-off election. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Great news, and we should post it when it happens. μηδείς (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My God, I'd thought I'd somehow missed a major news story and it turns out to be mere rhetorical waffle. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The Prime Minister of the UK promising a referendum on withdrawal from the EU is huge news, and a major development from the status quo. 87.63.85.30 (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it happens. Just politics at the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per CalendarWatcher, this is plain misleading. LightGreenApple talk to me 09:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly, I have a really hard time seeing this being actualised and as per above, this should only be posted when it it actually happens. Also, I suggest someone change the title of the nomination, at the moment it's extremely misleading. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

January 22Edit


Said Ali al-Shihri for Recent Deaths tickerEdit

Article: Said Ali al-Shihri (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [42], [43].

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Update is short but sufficient given what is known. Said Ali al-Shihri was widely cited as second in command of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). --Jayron32 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment This probably can not be posted until the WP:UNDUE article cleanup template has been resolved. --hydrox (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is a mess. It needs to be restructured before it can be linked on the main page. In particular, the various section sub-headers should be removed and the content phased into a broader section.--WaltCip (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the article is improved, and Lord knows that looks unlikely, this is not a nomination suitable for either blurb or ticker doktorb wordsdeeds 08:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Israeli electionsEdit

Article: Israeli legislative election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​X (Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu) win a plurality in the Israeli legislative election, 2013

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: polls close in 11 hours and results will trickle in soon. Im just working on adding some stuff there (here was a citations tag on the page though, once that gets done an update with reactions can make this ready) Lihaas (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

When the article is updated, ready to post. --Tone 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready? even with a 2,526 byte deletion this has been expanded by over 3,000 bytes and five referenced claims in the last day. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not ready, for the simple reason that the results haven't been announced yet, let alone incorporated into the article. They're due to come out on Wednesday. Modest Genius talk 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Technically the article is ready, and it would be nice for us once to have a link up for something before it is 36 hours old. We've got consensus that Netanyahu's current coalition has won. Given the uncontested results, the staleness of the current listings, the fact that the article is technically updated, and the lack of necessity to wait for ever single statistic to be confirmed, we don't need to lag on this. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Of course it's not ready. We don't know who won yet. The page says estimates are based on exit polls. There are no officially reported resultss. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Well, again, technically, the article is ready when it has been updated, which it has been as of the nomination. I am sure you understand that point. My real underlying concern is that we have an admin post this as soon as we get a one-sentence update that the Netanyahu coalition has officially won. Not a day's delay due to lack of attention, or waiting for even more of an update than just the declaration of a winner. We shouldn't be waiting on the filling in of statistics before we post this. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until article is updated with official results. If that happens, go ahead and post this. --Jayron32 03:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting now - I heard the results announced yesterday on the radio. The article appears updated enough for a blurb to be posted. Do it now, please. Jusdafax 09:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Almost ready. There's now a results table, with references. But no prose about them. Add a few (referenced) sentences and it's there. Modest Genius talk 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Marking ready as there's now a decent amount of prose about the conduct and results. Modest Genius talk 13:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

January 21Edit


Michael WinnerEdit

Article: Michael Winner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail, BBC. Most papers running multiple articles (see "Related articles" sidebars).

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: High-profile, colourful figure in the UK; death has been getting heavy coverage across UK media --Jheald (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose, his significance in his field doesn't appear to be quite up to scratch for RD. Still, a colorful character nonetheless (By the way, he passed away on the 21st).--Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A 'colourful character' isn't really enough. No BAFTAs, no Academy Awards. I would say that Death Wish was a somewhat notable film but otherwise not particularly a notable career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I wonder whether that's really the right yardstick to apply, though. It seems a bit like assessing Jeremy Clarkson as just a motoring journalist, or Don King as just a boxing promoter. Winner is not some long-ago great that nobody's really thought about for years. His real talent, rather than his film directing, was in creating a larger-than-life persona and keeping it in the public eye really right up until a fortnight before he died. That's why he is being remembered so widely, and what the Sunday Times thought it was worth paying a fortune for his columns for. Jheald (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Not to be snarky, and with no disrespect toward you or your nomination, but using that yardstick, we'd include Gilbert Gottfried, Snooki, and Carrot Top in RD. The questions are notability and impact, and the answers are that he didn't have enough of them. Oppose -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having an effective PR team is not one of our death criteria. Not among the most important film directors (or food critics, or insurance salesmen) of his generation. Kevin McE (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Calm down, dear, it's only a recent death. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Was not a leading figure in cinema; to a large extent his contemporary fame rests upon a catch phrase in a series of TV adverts. Not significant enough in my opinion. Modest Genius talk 21:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Given his standing in his field (one real movie of note) he hardly compares to dear abby. Can't speak for TV adverts, maybe someone could give a youtube link? μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - His TV adverts are hardly sufficient claim to fame on their own. His movies, while noteworthy, do not make him a leader in his field. He was quite a polymath, but not so outstandingly so that I think we need to include him here. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. And I'm jealous of Lugnuts for beating me to the joke. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker Has a varied and well regarded back catalogue, very well regarded career as (an often utterly self-obsessed) restaurant critic, and is a cultural touchstone for many doktorb wordsdeeds 14:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Algeria updateEdit

Operation over, time to update the hostage crisis blurb and bump.Lihaas (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify more specifically what changes you are recommending? (Also, the item is already at the top of ITN, so I don't know what you mean by "bump"). SpencerT♦C 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Reactions elicited and th e Algerian govt has announced the end of operations with some 23-odd hostages dead (foreign). Key being the operations ver (and similarly to the ]]26/11]] incident)Lihaas (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless there are demonstrations internationally that are notable in themselves, we don't generally post public reactions to events that occur, only the events themselves. SpencerT♦C 09:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Rather than just saying that somebody else should write a new blurb, writing one so it is ready to post would be much more useful to the posting admin :). Thue (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

January 20Edit


Barack Obama inaugurationEdit

Clear consensus not to post; no need to waste more effort on this nomination. SpencerT♦C 02:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Second inauguration of Barack Obama (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Barack Obama is sworn in for a second term as the 44th President of the United States.
News source(s): New York Times, The Olympian, ABC News
 Andise1 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- We posted his election. This is merely a formality, and we wouldn't post this for any other country. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We knew when he was elected that he'd be sworn in on Jan 20. Bzweebl is right that this wouldn't be considered for any other nation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would only have been ITNworthy if it hadn't happened for some reason. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Procedural inevitability. Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral we don't normally post these, but it is on the front page of bbc.co.uk, and that seems to be a highly important benchmark these days. --IP98 (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neutral on the actual story but it's probably overkill to have the first one on TFA and the second on ITN so quickly. GRAPPLE X 19:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons allowed above. Mere administration, not for ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. I cannot realise any significance beyond an inauguration of a head of state, even it's the President of the United States in question.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The election was the noteworthy event, not his being sworn in again. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
support as its all thats in the news regardless are personal opinions. Plus we posted australia's elecion thirce, and canada/uk twice. Obama's actual election was in Dec too.Lihaas (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Wait You might have better luck getting his third inaugural posted as news. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope when the queen kicks the bucket we use this as a precedent for not posting when Camilla's tampon gets crowned. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 19Edit


Ahmed Dogan assassination attemptEdit

Article: Ahmed Dogan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An assailant identified as Oktai Enimehmedov attempts to assassinate opposition leader Ahmed Dogan at a party congress.
News source(s): BBC

 --EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose It came, it went, it got a hypergazillion views on YouTube. This is a curiosity (shocking to watch, of course), not a front page news story doktorb wordsdeeds 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support per precedent, the Gabrielle Giffords shooting was posted and she wasn't even the leader of her party in her legislative body as this man is. I'd support it more if he had actually been wounded, but as a matter of fairness it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind to weak oppose. This man seems to have been the only one in danger, unlike the Giffords shooting where many were wounded and others killed. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It wasn't an attempted assassination apparently, more like a political stunt - TYTN --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Vice President of Indian National CongressEdit

Consensus not to post now; wait to see if he is PM later. SpencerT♦C 02:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Rahul Gandhi (talk, history)
Blurb: Rahul Gandhi appointed vice president of the Indian National Congress
News source(s): Times of India, NDTV
 --Gfosankar (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comments- He is the fourth generation from the Nehru–Gandhi family. He likely to be the Prime Ministerial candidate by Indian National Congress for next general election.Gfosankar (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't usually post changes to the organizational structure of political parties. When he's prime minister, we'll deal with it then. --Jayron32 06:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Opposition The incumbent minister of India was not the Vice-President of the INC. The suggestion by the nominator that he is likely to be the Prime Ministerial candidate of the INC or the UPA should be treated as the personal opinion of the nominator. Prime Ministers in India can be definitely defined only after the results of the Union elections are announced and after the alliances are forged. Besides this organizational changes are not considered as ITN candidates.Regards, theTigerKing  06:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will die laughing at this. We don't even post anything when someone is appointed as the vice president of a country. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. Not a notable or significant position in the context of a Wikipedia nomination. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Each day many people are appointed to similar or more important positions.Egeymi (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not many Indians really bother about it.Leave the whole world! TheStrikeΣagle 10:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting, but not suitable for ITN as the position is not important enough. The fact that he might be a candidate for PM doesn't make it important enough. If and when he is elected PM, that will get mentioned. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile on Oppose. To be fair, this did make very big news in India, and CNN is running an analysis article on its main page. But even when we step aside from the politics, this is not ITN-worthy by a long shot. MikeLynch (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD: Stan MusialEdit

Article: Stan Musial (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Huffington Post ESPN

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the greatest and most well known baseball players of all time, probably good enough for at least RD. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is defunct for good reason. --IP98 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - Hall of Famer, Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, one of the all-time greats. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per ITN/DC #2 --IP98 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Meets ITN/DC #2 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD I know, I'm a biased baseball fan, but this seems like a no-brainer. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ticker; helps that it's an FA too. Oppose blurb but consensus seems clear on where to put him. Wizardman 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready The support is universal, and although it wasn't before, it is well updated now. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - "Stan the Man" was highly notable and worth an RD at the very least. Jusdafax 04:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Jayron32 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support update to blurb, universally considered one of the greatest baseball players of all-time, one of the most beloved figures in American sports, front page news on practically every American news website, which is unheard of for any athlete, top story in the New York Times [44], second top story in CNN [45] who named him "one of its greatest, most dignified ambassadors" in baseball five page obituary from the associated press, more reactions should be coming tomorrow, as this news broke during the evening. It is safe to say he was the American sports equivalent to Donald Bradman. Oh and its a FA to boot. Secret account 06:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Instead of updating to a full blurb, what about nominating if for TFA instead? It has not yet appeared on the Main page. --Tone 20:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably agree with Tone, TFA is a better place to go, although it is desirable to feature FA content on ITN. However, I wouldn't quite say Musial is the US equivalent of Donald Bradman. While these apples to oranges comparisons are always complicated, Musial wasn't the very best at his sport, merely one of the very best. (note, I'm a St. Louis Cardinals fan). Among living MLB players the closest equivalent would probably be Willy Mays or Hank Aaron. Also, my feeling is that the RD ticker was created in part to allow figures like Musial who are familiar to only part of the Wikipedia audience to be posted with less fuss; a nomination for a full blurb in the past would have likely resulted in a bitter debate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RD for Earl WeaverEdit

Article: Earl Weaver (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A Hall of Fame Manager, one of the best and most well-known in baseball history. --AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 01:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I actually considered nominating when I heard the news. In the end I was not convinced he passed ITN/DC #2. 17 years as an MLB manager. Hall of Fame is too inclusive to give every inductee a pass. --IP98 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
ITN/DC #2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." You don't think Earl Weaver was an important figure? AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 02:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
An important figure, but not a very important figure. He is far from one of the top 10 most important people in his sport, and that's saying a lot, since a top 10 figure in a comparably popular sport like rugby might not pass RD, though I have no precedent for that. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
17 years, 1 world series, radio show, a book. Basically a run of the mill baseball manager. He wasn't a drugged up loser, but he wasn't very important either. --IP98 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yeah, a managing career of one World Series win isn't enough really. Unlike Musial above, Weaver isn't one of the all time greats. He did have a good computer game named after him though.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very important manager, one of the great "characters" of the game, still not of the same league as Stan the Man above, who until he died was the greatest living baseball player; and I'm not sure you'd get much debate on that. Weaver was well known, but not "greatest at what he did" territory. --Jayron32 06:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weaver was one of the greatest masterminds in regards to pitching, which is the main reason why he was elected to the Hall of Fame relatively fast, otherwise not among the all-time greatest managers, even with those who are still living (Cox, Torre, and a few others). Oppose Secret account 06:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not an obituary service. Not significant or important enough a person for the front page (as, no doubt, will be the conclusion upon most of us editors when we pass on too) doktorb wordsdeeds 07:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 Dakar RallyEdit

Article: 2013 Dakar Rally (talk, history)
Blurb: Stéphane Peterhansel wins a record 11th overall Dakar Rally
Alternative blurb: ​In auto racing, Stéphane Peterhansel wins the car category of the Dakar Rally.
News source(s): [46], [47]
Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Article has an orange tag and needs a little work. --IP98 (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment It does need work. From reading the lead, I'm not sure what this competition is. I presume some sort of car race, but what kind of car? What's the competition exactly? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The lead of Dakar Rally does that excellently, an article which the lead of 2013 Dakar Rally has a bold link to. Although I do agree that 2013 Dakar Rally could make some mention in the first paragraph that this is a rally raid. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I shouldn't have to click through to a second page just to figure out what the highlighted page is about. The term "rally raid" is still not used in the article anywhere, so I oppose – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak-to-middling support, if someone does the necessary work on the article. Formerip (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Didn't notice that it was ITNR. The above more-or-less still stands, though. Formerip (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and request to remove from ITN/R No offence, I do not get how this managed to make it into ITN/R ever. I have never seen this ever mentioned in the news, none in the history of the event, if it ever appears, it only get a tiny snippets, literally like college football. Only newsworthy to a small minority of motorsport enthusiasts. Donnie Park (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • my nomination is based on what I observed, events that were more deserving that was refused nomination, example the FIFA Club World Cup, which a month ago was heavily opposed, stating that it was insignificant when according an article in the Evening Standard on the 17th December, it stated that it may not be important to people in Europe but it is in South America and ask South Americans and Africans public. Donnie Park (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I will hold this link as a prime example, it said that it is not in ITN/R and some argues that it isn't significant enough to be listed, so how the hell did this event made it to ITN/R, the only event worthy of being listed was its non-event in 2008 or is that the reason. Donnie Park (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a top tier tournament in an international motorsport classification. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument, nor is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We post plenty of football, I'm sorry that we didn't post <<insert your favorite event here>> didn't get posted. --IP98 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Before I get accused of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to absolutely make it clear that I am not a football person, I tend to edit motorsport related subjects, check edit history. Donnie Park (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Being a top level tournament in one classification of a sport is not a pass to main page prominence. We didn't post Larysa Solovyova retaining her women's -63kg powerlifting title in Aguadilla last year. There is no call for your sarcastic closing comment. Kevin McE (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It was a direct response to Donnie Parks remarks. To be clear, I don't care about the Dakar Rally, but it's certainly more broad in scope than "women's -63kg powerlifting". --IP98 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Donnie's comment was that this is not significant enough, not that he didn't like it. I would agree that it is of greater scope than the womens -63kg powerlifting, but your comment was not predicated on scope, but on being top level in a classification of a sport. Kevin McE (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
We're way OT here but Donnie specifically linked to the 2012 FIFA Club World Cup as a "prime example". Regarding the tier, in this case it's "rally racing", not, for example "mens age 35-42 closed top 4wd rally raid". --IP98 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
We probably ought to stop, but the top level of competition in rallying is the World Championship. This is only the top level if you chose to focus on one specific sub-category of rallying, the rally raid (power lifting rather than other forms of weightlifting in my example), but then choose to be selective among that subcategory (cars rather than bikes, quads or trucks in your text, -63 kg women in mine). Kevin McE (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Donnie Park that this event seems to be a niche event that is of interest to a very small number of enthusiasts. I've supported it in the past but I believe it wasn't posted last year, plus the article has several issues.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I will start a proposal to consider whether Dakar Rally should be retained at ITN/R doktorb wordsdeeds 11:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • At this point, removing an item from ITNR is next to impossible. –HTD 04:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and oppose the assumption that that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN on the basis of many of the above comments. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It wouldn't be on ITNR if it wasn't significant. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It was placed on ITN/R with no discussion at all. That is not evidence of a considered consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, too many insignificant events are, that's the problem. If you go to the talk page, you'll see a link discussing whether to remove Dakar Rally from ITNR doktorb wordsdeeds 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep ITNR but I will wait for supporting it for a blurb for now until a map will be added. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I am surprised there is opposition to this. I am against ITNR as such, but this race is historically notable and a record has been set. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Premier example of a rally raid, and arguably the most famous race of its kind. It has been posted before, and there is enough information to create a solid article update. SpencerT♦C 20:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Taihō KōkiEdit

Article: Taihō Kōki (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of Malta, Washington Post
Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Important figure in Sumo. 48th yokozuna and all-time leader in makuuchi (top division) championships (32). --61.245.26.4 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Support RD I would support this if it is picked up by any major news outlet(s) outside of Japan. At least Google News can't find any at the time being. --hydrox (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC) ed: picked up by the Washington Post. --hydrox (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update is also needed. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for full blurb. Even if sumo is not a very international sport, he was arguably the most successful sumo player in the modern era (sort of what Pele is for football). Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: I've seen even Russian, Venezuelan, Croatian and Brazilian sources picking up the news of his death. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD pending update, oppose blurb per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support as greatest athlete in his sport. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If we have that many sources, surely the nominator or someone else can get three more sentences towards an update? μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  Done There's now a five-sentence update on the last stage of his life. --hydrox (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • RD support, really worried that we are still so far away from an agreed and publicised consensus on who might get a death blurb in the RD era that this can be seriously suggested for a blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Posted to RD. --Tone 20:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 18Edit


Long MarchEdit

Articles: Long March (Pakistan) (talk, history) and Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sufi cleric Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri reaches an agreement with the government of Pakistan following his Long March

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: Culmination of all the Pak events, per ITNC precedence its the culmination that is ITN-worthy --Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Before we decide, do you have any links to prominent news sources, so we can judge how prominently this is In The News? --Jayron32 14:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
[48][49][] + an al jazeera/wsj source hat i cant find now. There are some moe on the page.Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any way to compare this with other protests in Pakistan? We posted the Catalonia protests, but those were widely viewed as record-sized protests, while the press in this case is reporting 40,000 people, if I read the article right. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Its the expectation and repercussions that are more important here. The Declaration made headlines. (we could link to Pakistani general election, 2013)Lihaas (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I must weak oppose until there is evidence this event is being covered by international media in some form; discussions in the last few weeks have shown me that is an important consideration. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed due to update the long march article doesn't have enough sources for the amount of prose. Specifically the reactions section is largely unsourced. Ul-Qadri's article is better, but the long march section doesn't cover enough of the event to carry it through to the MP. Agree this is a fairly major development. --IP98 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
EVERY square inch of the page is sourced and the source is profvided. So does hat mean yu support or have another reason to oppose?
per precedence, this has muhc more of an updae than the majority of INT ariclesLihaas (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I count two inline sources in the entire reactions section. There are two whole huge paragraphs totally unsourced. There are direct quotes from government officials with no sources. I added some fact tags to help. --IP98 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
EVERYTHING is sourced, i know, i added i. Itsoverref-fin, i feel, to ad d same ref without an intermediate diff references. The section ref includes all those quotes. You can read it.Lihaas (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 17Edit


[Posted to RD as Pauline Phillips] Dear Abby diesEdit

Pauline Phillips for RD. front page at BBC and other places. A syndicated author with over 100 million readers. EDIT--I changed the name to Pauline Phillips from Pauline Friedman, Phillips is her married name and the name mostly used in the media.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Only RD- She's definitely well known within the English-speaking world, but her article isn't very impressive, and she wasn't influential for a full blurb regardless. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Iconic newspaper columnist. Support even though Wikipedia points out the rivalry with Dear Ann. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD or full blurb, per Susan, probably one of the most influential women journalists in history, clearly meets criteria #2 of deaths. Secret account 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I must admit I am sad at her passing, her influence in her unique field cannot be overlooked. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Question: If we do post this, what name should we use? Pauline Friedman is her birth name, but is a redirect to her married name "Pauline Phillips". However, per WP:COMMONNAME, she is universally more recognized by her nom de plume "Abigail Van Buren". I suspect almost no reader would recognize either of the Pauline names, but many would recognize Abigail Van Buren instantly. I think, if we do post this in the RD ticker, it should be under Abigail Van Buren. After all, if Martin Sheen died, we wouldn't post it as "Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estévez", even though he's never legally changed his name to Martin Sheen. What does everyone else think? --Jayron32 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The ticker isn't super crowded, and the two Jan 11 items will likely expire off soon, I'm ok with an "aka" either "Dear Abby" or "Abigail Van Buren". Dear Abby is shorter.... --IP98 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, the ticker has two items already, and we usually only put 3 names on it. Having a legal name and a pen name at the same time would make it too long. I think we should just post it as Abigail Van Buren and do it that way. --Jayron32 21:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
          • I think we should post it as "Dear Abby". It's what's best known, so much so that it's in the Hollywood Walk of Fame. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Nearly every news source I can find calls her Pauline Phillips in the title. On the other hand Dear Abby gets a lot more hits. My feeling is that as an encyclopedia we should use her accurate name, so I'd say Pauline Phillips. I don't think Abigal Van Buran is really as well known as 'Dear Abby' and 'Dear Abby' is way too unencyclopedic. We could solve this by moving to a full blurb but my feeling, and it consensus so far agrees, that this is an RD ticker item. So let's stick to Pauline Phillips and let readers learn her pseudonyms in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per ITN/DC #2. Even if her field was newspaper advice columns. --IP98 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD; widely known in her field, with tens of millions of readers. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD definitely significant enough to draw some mention. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD using the common name of "Dear Abby" piped to her real name. The Hollywood walk star says "Dear Abby" – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD with the name 'Dear Abby' and a pipe-link. Probably the most influential writer in her field in the whole world. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Name We wouldn't say Reginald Dwight passed away. We should use the name--pen name or columnist--that she's known by. (Opposed, BTW) μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD as Pauline Phillips --Stephen 23:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Aviation regulators ground the Boeing 787Edit

Article: Boeing 787 Dreamliner (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After a string of incidents involving overheating in their lithium ion batteries, several national aviation regulatory agencies issue orders grounding the worldwide fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft.
Alternative blurb: Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft are grounded worldwide over concerns surrounding the saftey of their lithium ion batteries.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, Time, Taipei Times, Montreal Gazette, Hindustan Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant development, a whole bunch of national aviation regulators have grounded the worldwide fleet of Boeing 787s, including Japan, Europe, India, China, and the U.S. Covered in major news sources around the world. As a nice bonus, there's a free pic to use as well. --Jayron32 16:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support the concept of posting this; covered worldwide, involves a new aircraft used worldwide, but suggest a shorter blurb, perhaps simply by dropping the first part of the proposed one. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose at this time. In the US this affects 6 planes (only United had them), and I think the number worldwide is rather small since they've only started rolling the 787's out. It would be different if it were, say, the 737's which are more widely used and would be in the thousands and would have major effects on the airline industry. This at this point is effectively just a bad business break for Boeing. Now, if down the road, FAA and others say "sorry, we're not going to allow the 787's to fly again period", which would be a huge economic impact on Boeing which has invested a lot in this, that would be different. Right now, its a standard regulatory thing that's a small impact to anyone outside of Boeing. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Noting a change from outright Oppose to Weak Oppose; WaltCip's pointer of the improved article is a factor towards including in ITN, though I still stand by the fact that the 787 fleet is tiny relative to worldwide aircraft fleet sizes, with the only major impact on Boeing and a few airlines. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The number of 787's in circulation should not be a factor; it's still the latest iteration in the Boeing line, and the entire fleet being grounded would certainly be significant international news in the topic of interest. Aerospace news (save for crashes) seems to be fairly underrepresented on ITN. Also, the Boeing 787 article has been significantly updated as a result of the news, which makes it a prime candidate for being posted on the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as expected, several other national aviation authorities issued grounding orders following the FAA. It's a big deal when a top tier manufacturer has such a significant event with such a highly engineered piece of equipment. By comparison, the Boeing_737_rudder_issues which caused multiple aircraft crashes did not result in a grounding. --IP98 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support- Clearly worldwide, and there are plenty of these planes around. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Boeing calls it the most technologically advanced aircraft on the planet and also for all the reasons mentioned above. But the blurb is clumsy. An alternative[1]:Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircrafts are grounded worldwide following the risks of battery fires.Regards, theTigerKing  19:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: I've added a shorter blurb as the "altblurb" based on suggestion above. As always, tweak as needed. --Jayron32 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support universal grounding of newest commercial airliner, with multiple problems on aircraft of differing ages. A serious issue, not just the batteries, but the cracked cockpit glass, the failed brakes etc., affecting aircraft one month or one year old. Multiple failures on multiple aircraft of varying flying hours. A truly notable failure for any new aircraft. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Boldly marking as ready. The alt blurb is good, the update is excellent, there is strong consensus to post. --IP98 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, seemingly busting the myth of the "ever safer airline industry"? The major player. Quite gobsmacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's ready to go, but please ensure the blurb reflects reality, perhaps simplify to state that all 787s have been grounded pending investigation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted, with a modified version of the alternate blurb to better explain reasons and to shorten the statement. Prodego talk 21:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

January 16Edit


[Updated] [Posted] Algeria hostage crisisEdit

Article: In Aménas hostage crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An attack in Algeria resulted in a hostage crisis with 20 to 40 international workers being held.
Alternative blurb: ​Up to 41 international workers are taken hostage in an attack in Algeria

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This story is of international significance. I believe it stands apart from the French military action in Mali which we have a blurb for. Jusdafax 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Seems important.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to write and nominate this but was too lazy and decided to let someone else do it. Should the blurb mention that hostages included US, British, French, Norwegian, Japanese and Irish citizens or that it was in response to French intervention in Mali? I don't think it should mention both for sure. Ryan Vesey 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In my view, the word "international" in the blurb covers it. The French/Mali military connection is well covered in the article but this is a separate event with its own stories in the media. Jusdafax 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, it's not a major issue. The article currently states an estimated 41 in the lead, up to 41 in the infobox, and exactly 41 in the Hostages section. In addition, it doesn't make it clear if the 2 deaths are part of the number of hostages, or if there are ~41 living hostages and 2 who died or if there are 39 living hostages and 2 who died. I bring that up here because the blurb should be more specific on the hostages rather than saying 20-40 and should mention the deaths. Ryan Vesey 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and I can see the reasons to include and exclude the fact that it's a response to the French intervention in Mali. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Is the Mali connection not just (perfectly reasonable) speculation at the moment? Formerip (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point, the New York Times said it appeared to be a reaction. I'd say post it without the Mali reaction information until something can be proven. Ryan Vesey 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd leave out the motive-speculation (the US lied about Benghazi for weeks) and say "some three dozen", or "tens" if the number of hostages is important. I am in support of this as long as will pull it quickly if they are freed. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • By pull I assume you mean update (unless it's within the next few hours), as two days from now people may wish to know they've been freed. gwickwiretalkedits 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Update or pull. If they are swiftly released, which sometimes happens, then yes, pull. Wouldn't that be nice? μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support w/o any motive speculation, and with the simpler hostage count proposed by Medeis. gwickwiretalkedits 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb as nominated. --IP98 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Boldly marking as ready. Seeming universal support and good update. --IP98 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't support the blurb in it's current state and I've unmarked it as ready. I checked the New York Times which mentioned 20 attackers, which might have led to the confusion. At a minimum, the blurb should say "up to 41" instead of "20 to 40". Ryan Vesey 00:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've offered an alternative blurb. Ryan Vesey 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

At Least 41 fine with me as long as we get quick admin action on this if the info changes. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment -"At least 41" seems ok, as 41 appears to be the figure most reported. So I am good with the alt blurb, and suggest we re-mark as ready. I just did a news sweep and there is no sign of this being resolved soon. I see strong consensus to post. Jusdafax 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like an extremely significant news item. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 02:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, involves people of different nationalities, and it's a significant number of people. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. --Jayron32 05:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
While i support this inclusion, perhaps we should link it to Mali (the explicit reason given) with a bump for that bold article/.Lihaas (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The connection to Mali, is not a part of the actual event, so it doesn't belong in the blurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • UPDATE NEEDED- Reports say there has been an attack on the compound by the Algerian troops. The blurb needs an update regarding that right away. It appears some of the hostages and most of the hostage takers are now dead, with some hostages liberated. My thanks to any admins free to work on this. Jusdafax 20:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC) [50] [51] [52]
    • I'd gladly do so, but the article needs updating first. The article, and its sources, are still couched in ambiguous language "reportedly" "allegedly" "unconfirmed reports" that sort of thing, and if we have good confirmation of further significant developments, we need two things: 1) A solid update to the article that removes eariler unconfirmed reports and wishy-washy text with more updated, solid, and unambiguous sources that confirm the recent developments and 2) a blurb to replace the current one with. If you can come up with that, we have an update for the blurb coming. --Jayron32 20:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Problem being, there is a wealth of contradictory information even in the strongest news outlets at this moment. As I suggested elsewhere, my own suggestion is to add from the end of the blurb, replacing the ending period with a comma, "with a subsequent raid by Algerian forces resulting in multiple fatalities." On the other hand, perhaps the best thing to do is let the dust settle over this tragedy until there is definitive word on what actually happened. It seems the crisis is still in progress and that there are unliberated hostages still held. Jusdafax 21:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Update As I suspected this moved very quickly and the blurb is hugely stale. Whatever admin posted this should take responsibility for the update. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
support update and came here to say that. Though only thing is the actual number of dead is unconfirmed from Mauritania/Islamist source to Algerian source. Apparently some Algerian escaped and other hostages are still held.Lihaas (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated. Let me know if this new wording needs fixing or clarification. SpencerT♦C 04:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Helicopter crash in LondonEdit

Article: Vauxhall helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two are killed as a helicopter crashes in south London.
News source(s): BBC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not every day a helicopter goes down in a capital city. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Leaning support - It is an unusual story, an event which has caused massive disruption on rail, buses and road, and has tragically seen people killed. The article is concise and well referenced (thanks to those who helped out after I created the bare bone article), which should satisfy our criteria. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Local news, short term incident. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm a Londoner. This is a serious and tragic incident. But I think it remains to be seen whether it's got the sort of wide-ranging effect that a good ITN story should. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

*Support An unusual incident in the center of Europe's largest metropolis, this is notable. If it had happened in the US, it would already be on the main page. Getting (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing support, I no longer wish to contribute to this matter due to certain users causing problems. I remove my support, please disregard the original vote I made when counting the results. Getting (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Certain editors being the one you ordered to "kiss your ass", or the certain editor who reverted your unsolicited article move? doktorb words

deeds 11:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when you accused me of being a vandal. I hope your feelings were hurt. Getting (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) So your badly-edited petulance has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the story itself at all? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Getting's point is ridiculous. As strange as it is and temporarily disruptive as it is, this is not a serious incident with minute international implications and wouldn't appear on the main page had it happened anywhere. Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Local incident; I'm American and I would oppose it if it happened in London, New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, the North Pole, or anywhere. The idea that it would get posted because of some US bias is wrong and mildly offensive. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That last sentence is OTT. To say that there might be a systemic bias towards stories heavily covered in the US media, and to say that specific contributors are consciously holding US and non-US stories to different standards, are two entirely different things. The former might be a valid point, particularly if a seemingly equivalent story has been put forward, as in this case. The latter is an allegation that has not been made here and should not be made lightly. —WFCFL wishlist 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to bog this page down debating my comments; so I will only say that I stand by it. I'm willing to discuss it elsewhere if desired. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I would argue it shouldn't have been; too few casualties and otherwise didn't involve large numbers of people. Things change in seven years. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a prominent story in international media, not just British: LA Times - second story, Le Monde (France) - fifth story, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) - top story.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on the precedent already set by the NY article, and by virtue of the fact it's making headlines in countries around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it really is a minor aviation incident and it's only getting major coverage because of the city. Yes we posted a small plane hitting a building in NYC in 2k6, if I had been here, I would have opposed it. --IP98 (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Unsure. Like people say it's been getting a lot of coverage because of the location, yet also is relatively minor in terms of how aviation incidents can go. Canuck89 (talk to me) 12:32, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
It's tricky. On the one hand, the casualty figures are mercifully low. On the other, this was clearly very nearly much worse - the stricken chopper just missed another tall building, and came down in the middle of the main road into Vauxhall bus station from the south in the middle of the morning rush hour. But then we don't post what might have been. As it is, this has not been much worse than any provincial light aviation accident. How much metropolitan panic needs to be added to such a story before it becomes front page news? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
oppose 2 deaths, local incident (not even UK-wide, only London). Conversely theere were 80+ uni deaths in Syria yest. Even unusual for the civil war natureLihaas (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
So ask for a sticky. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It's stickied there for months now. Dunno if it's being maintained daily, though. –HTD 03:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor, just completely over-reported by the BBC since it's in London. Could have beens don't count. Fgf10 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The 2006 New York City plane crash involved a notable individual, Cory Lidle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral The article, while short, is postable. Therefore, the credibility of this as an ITN candidate really depends how heavily this has been covered by organisations other than the BBC. I would hope that admins ignore arbitrary rationalisations of the death toll, and instead focus on arguments which reflect on the level (or lack thereof) of international prominence this story has received. —WFCFL wishlist 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The death toll is certainly relevant; if we posted every event with two deaths, ITN would be bogged down with postings While international coverage is relevant, it should not be the sole criterion in determining what happens here. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ITN serves as the Main Page's link between what is encyclopaedic and what is newsworthy, in the hope of attracting readers whose initial interest was the latter. Assuming that the subject merits a Wikipedia article, and that said article is of reasonable quality, why on earth shouldn't coverage be the overriding factor? —WFCFL wishlist 19:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Clearly death toll is not relevant, it's the impact on international news which is important. 331dot, how many deaths for you to accept an ITN? 10? 20? 50? 25,000? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but certainly not two. If we post this two death incident for the sole reason that it was reported in many places, then we would have to post them all. International reporting of an event is not the sole criterion to post here, as I've seen other events rejected despite being reported worldwide. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Obviously a plane crash is a local incident because it can only happen in one place, but I agree that this is just too small-scale to be notable. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not on main page of diewelt.de, or lemonde.fr, or elmundo.es: my standard round of assessing international impact. Kevin McE (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Now on main page of diewelt.de ("Tote nach Helikopterabsturz in Londons Innenstadt"), lemondre.fr ("Deux morts dans un crash d'hélicoptère à Londres"), elmundo.es ("Un helicóptero se estrella en Londres"). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A small crash like this, however tragic for the victims, is by itself not notable, and given there's no destruction of a landmark or other notable issue involved it doesn't raise to the level of ITN. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major international news item. Article looks good. --hydrox (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
In what way was this international? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It was reported internationally: Sydney, Moscow, Stockholm, Mumbai, Toronto, Los Angeles, Hamburg, New York, Paris, Madrid etc. etc. --hydrox (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Subject is a prominent news story, many reliable news sources are reporting it, and article is in good shape. --Jayron32 20:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As soon as I saw that Google was listing this article under other news stories on this event I came here, just knowing that somebody would be trying to get it ITN. This is a local news story, with few deaths. It is not "major". It is not "international". Abductive (reasoning) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It was reported internationally. It's notable. It was "in the news" internationally. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If a similar incident happened in say... Dublin, IRE, would that be reported internationally? No. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You way too underestimate the esteemed Irish lobby here at ITN. –HTD 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Note, it says above "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country". Everyone complaining that the event isn't international seems to be ignoring this. 2.28.216.166 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • My complaint is not based on the fact that the event occurred in the UK; it is based on the fact that it is an event limited in scope to a single city. I wouldn't care if it was in the UK, US, Japan, or wherever. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      • Everyone seems to conveniently forget about that little rule when it comes to, say, NCAA football.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That's staggeringly irrelevant to this discussion. Sporting contests and fatal aviation accidents are not comparable. And you know full well that the main reason for opposition to NCAA sports here is that they are not the highest level at which those sports are played - not that they are confined to the USA. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

January 15Edit


Prime Minister of Pakistan arrest orderEdit

Article: Raja Pervez Ashraf (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of Pakistan orders the arrest of current Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf and 15 others on corruption charges.
News source(s): New York TimesABC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: It is very rare for a major government official to be subject to arrest, and the conflict between the judiciary and executive is creating a crisis. There are also reports of thousands of protesters in the streets denouncing the current government. --Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - Highly interesting development and it could get big really fast. I am on the fence and like others here will continue to watch for developments. The update in the article is one sentence... very inadequate. Jusdafax 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support since the arrest order for a pm in office is clearly notable. However, the article should be updated regarding the events leading to today's verdict.Egeymi (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A supreme court in a large country issuing an arrest warrent for the prime minister is obviously notable. Thue (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
oppose arrest order only from a politicised judiciary acting only afer the long march's organiser's whims. Instead consider the new ITNC nom below.Lihaas (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support' - Lihaas, we can't understand the nomination below, let alone vote on it. I agree with Jusdafax and others with regards this interesting and notable story, and think it deserves to be on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
btw0 i appreciate this comment as not bite-y, i can comment on this. Thanks for commenting on comntent.
As an aside, i was nominating it before this gets rapidly posted without conent. Ive added stuff to the page and am working on the main section now.Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The arrest of a head of government is notable. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is certainly a big enough story. But are we looking at a situation where his actual arrest might be imminent? Should we wait for that to happen? Formerip (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I would rather wait until Ashraf is actually arrested, but who knows if that will actually happen. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
comment NO update whatsoever. Only 1 vague sentence.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once suitable update written. Receiving prominent international coverage, and an arrest warrant for a PM is certainly sufficiently notable. Lihaas may very well be right that this is the action of a politicised judiciary, but (1) I don't think it's our place to judge the merits of actions in the news; and (2) I don't see that that makes it any less notable - it still produces a standoff between the government and court. On balance, I don't think we should wait for the actual arrest, given (1) the possibility the government will ignore this and it won't happen; and (2) the fact it's already receiving lots of coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As a very significant newsworthy item. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have updated it somewhat, but I'm not sure if it's sufficient. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but the update is still mighty thin. Trouble is, this news item is fast going stale and I see no effort being made to actually arrest Ashraf. At least, nothing I am seeing in the news. Jusdafax 08:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support but Wait till arrested Given the long union of Military coups and the civilian governments. The directions of Supreme Court may not be implemented and could be challenged as well, if the opinion of a well known constitutional expert of Pakistan are to be taken into account.Regards, theTigerKing  19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Long MarchEdit

Withdrawn as context is apparently irrelevant, feel free to delete this altogether.Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Long March (Pakistan) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sufi Cleric Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri leads a Long March of over 10,000 people from Lahore to the national capital Islamabad.
Nominator's comments: Massive demonstration in scale, akin to Arab world protests. I will just go about updating an article. --Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Another badly written nomination from Lihaas. I can't even tell who or what this proposal is about. Could a kindly admin close this, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Write the article first – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Alex. The nomination has been badly written by Lihaas - as is so often the case - making a full appreciation of its merits difficult. But even if that hurdle is cleared, I then agree with Muboshgu, in that an article should exist before we consider its worth for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
"ANother badly written..." Where is that then? Instead of attackign editors and disrutping the collegial atmosphere consider commenting on CONTENT!!!!
At any rate, this is a work in progress and unlike the incessant bickering preferred here im ading content to WP. Do you do that instead? I was bringing to attention before the above gets posted (and completely derelict of context) as there was another more prescient, notable and covered iisue in Pakistan at the momentLihaas (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Please consider providing some content that we can actually comment on. Not only are the march and cleric red links (update: the cleric link was a red link when I posted this, now it points to the figure), you didn't provide a reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Im doing that. Also a simple google search can provide some. Give me les than 30Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, now the page exists, but there's still not much to go on. In the future, you should really create the article and make it substantive before you nominate, so the discussion doesn't get derailed the way this one did. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, when I posted my earlier comment, the cleric's name was missing altogether - there were just empty square brackets there. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
...and Lihaas has now deleted my firm request that he display the required competence in editing this page: [53] AlexTiefling (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As you are required to display your competence in following WP guidelines.
Further im not obligated to keep drivel on y talk page, as are you.
Yall are welcome to nominate the page for deletion sicne you see it unfit (i doubt itll pass)Lihaas (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking of CongressEdit

WP:SNOW close; consensus not to post. SpencerT♦C 01:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Taking of Congress (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 130 private citizens from different advocacy groups visit every member of the U.S. Congress to advocate to change the current political status of Puerto Rico in a campaign called Taking of Congress.
News source(s): [54][55][56][57][58]
 —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We already covered Puerto Rico's statehood campaign, in a far less partial manner, just after the US election and accompanying referendum. This is just a small part of the same campaign. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is actually quite notable. Have we ever had a movement that visited every single member of Congress in a single day for the same cause/goal? Evenmoreso, this is about changing the political status of a whole nation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Puerto Rico isn't a "nation". It's a commonwealth. As for your question, maybe we have. I know that an organization I'm affiliated with makes visits to Capitol Hill in a similarly organized manner on a regular basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the definition of "country" with the definition of "nation" 'cuz Puerto Rico is definetly a nation. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
(after ec and hamfisted deletion of my comment by Lihaas) I'm British, so 'we' have no Congress for activists to bother. You may wish to pay some attention to the movements for the independence of Scotland, Catalonia, and the Basque country before you assert that this is a unique movement for a political change to a whole nation. I have great sympathy with the Puerto Rican statehood movement; but this is just one publicity campaign for it. We are not here to report on publicity stunts, but on actual deeds and decisions. And replying assiduously to every opposing voter is most unbecoming. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, first of all, this is not about statehood movement since Taking of Congress did not identify itself with a specific status. Second, yes, Scotland has similar movements but I was referring in the context of U.S. history. Regarding my replies, don't we thrive on Wikipedia (and IRL) when we discuss things like rational people and express our opinions and counterarguments to persuade others? I'm so confused. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Discuss, yes. Bludgeon, no. Telling me they're not calling for statehood is either disingenuous or just needlessly confusing. With regard to their approach to every member of Congress - so what? It's just a stunt. They can climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman for all I care; that's still not news. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This smacks of Occupy-style "citizen news" to me, and we rightly defeated every attempt to get that rabble onto the front page. I have every sympathy - truly - with the ambition to get Peurto Rico a new status as the newest full State of the USA. I wish them every success. But this kind of story is not for Wikipedia - it's part of the long lobbying process, and however spectacular it may be, it's not "news". When the Occupy IP addresses flooded ITN/C to make their case, we correctly and rightly reminded them that they were just acting, just slogan shouting, just lobbying. They weren't "news" in the sense we needed for the front page of Wikipedia. Neither is this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talkcontribs) 21:54, January 15, 2013‎ (UTC)
This is not like Occupy since this is not a protest; at all. Didn't you just contradict yourself by calling it spectacular and then saying it is not news? o_O —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did. A "spectacle" can be anything which is attention grabbing. But a fireworks display is not news. A fight in the Italian parliament is not news. A small gathering of people waving flags, whilst spectacular in its widest sense, is not news. 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC) doktorb wordsdeeds 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 130 people talking to some congresspeople is not really big news. Thue (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thue and the others. Call me when PR gets statehood. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Snow Close? the nominator's user page is interesting, especially his occupation. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm so confused. Could you please be more specific and explain yourself as if I were a 5 year old? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious from your user page you are neither five nor will you be confused when an admin closes this. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Have you read the very first sentence of my user page? hint hint. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Identifying yourself as a compulsive liar is a good way never to be taken seriously. Making an apparently false claim to be a founder of Wikipedia is highly misleading whether or not you also claim to be a liar. You seem to be a lot newer than the similarly named user AnonMoos. You also, according to the last paragraph of your user page, appear to have a conflict of interest in this case. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Snow Close - Highly disruptive nom.--WaltCip (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, "Taking of Congress" does not appear in context in a Google search, save for the Wikipedia articles that this user has created.--WaltCip (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
No hablo Español. But a search of Google News in English and Spanish hasn't yielded a damned thing about this, and I don't think the links the OP has provided are to reliable news sites - or even to news at all. There is, bluntly, no evidence that this campaign even exists outside the puff-pieces of professional publicists. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong admits to dopingEdit

I know that we posted his suspension, but his actual acknowledgment might be ITN worthy also. Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I have been thinking of nominating this myself but given the current situation--he has admitted to doping in a taped interview which will be shown on Thursday in the US--it might be better to wait until the 'official' confession (or whatever it is). Plus, once the interview is released there will presumably be a lot more to report and a much larger basis for an update. So I would say, Support posting as soon as the interview is released, unless enough details of it are confirmed earlier.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Athlete admits to cheating" isn't really a headline suitable for ITN in the grand scheme of things.--WaltCip (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 'Cheat admits cheating' is not news. It's, er, chat. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As Alex above. "Cheat confirms he cheats on chat show" has an alliterative tang to it which may be attractive to poets, but whatever the heck you want to call it, it ain't news doktorb wordsdeeds 21:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait - seems possibly notable to me, as an important turning point in the most high-profile doping case I can think of. But we should wait until after the interview has been aired. Right now we don't know exactly what he will say. Thue (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
In what way is this a turning point? The case is over, Armstrong's career is ruined. This is just an appearance on Oprah. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The NYT article talks about cycling being excluded from the Olympics if IUC officials have known too much, which is hinted at. And I get the impression that his conviction was not really internalized everywhere until now, with many people saying he was unfairly convicted. Thue (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in the capacity of this man's partisans for self-delusion. As to the NYT's suggestion, WP:CRYSTAL applies. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is why I think you can't vote oppose to this before the interview has actually aired, and we know what is in it... Thue (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's an interview. Unless he proclaims himself to be the Messiah, announces that he's running for president, or reveals evidence of life on Mars, I'm not sure how he's going to make the cut. Besides, the nomination is for content in the interview which has already been announced. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we posted when they yelled "you cheated" and took his awards away, no reason to repost now that he's admitted "well, yeah, I cheated". --IP98 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP98. We posted when his awards were stripped. That's sufficient. Posting again would be overdoing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given above; Armstrong was only saying what we all knew already. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - so he decided to admit what the world knew already. Good for him for admitting it, but there's no reason to devote mainpage space to this topic which has become a bore. LadyofShalott 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but lets wait until the interview actually airs. There are already enough other sites reporting the contents of an interview that has yet to air. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 20:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As someone who's always denied any involvment in doping, this is a major development. Also it can include the fact that the IOC have stripped him of his Olympic bronze from Sydney in 2000. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Convicted criminals often deny that they committed the crime they were convicted of; it's not news when they finally admit it. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. IIRC, we ran when he was stripped of his titles for doping. Not seeing a need for a second ITN about it. Resolute 14:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade Swartz to full blurbEdit

Since it was posted at RD, this guy has gotten a ton of attention both in the US and internationally. I think he might deserve a full blurb. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Support full blurb per nominator, obviously he deserve that. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: a million times short of the profile of person that has been considered worthy of full blurb in the era of an RD column in any discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Kevin. Ryan Vesey 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose again, although I shouldn't have to, since this has already been discussed and posting a second thread is a way to make an end run around all the opposes already listed below. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
AGF please. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin. --IP98 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This story has been in the news for days now. Swartz was a major figure in his field, and his death was unexpected. The legal issues are of continuing interest in light of attempts to have him pardoned. For me it's not about what Swartz "deserves", it's the magnitude of the story and the fact that it has "legs." Jusdafax 21:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Eugen, it is not 'obvious' that the subject deserves this. You're supposed to produce actual arguments here, not just insist your chosen story should go up. Conversely, I think Kevin's characterisation of this story as 'a million times short' is very unfair. But we have already posted this story to RD, and I'm not sure what more needs to be said. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I opposed him even getting on the front page, so be sure as hell that a full blurb is being opposed. He is very much "another Steve Jobs" in my opinion - a man for whom post-mortem adulation has come from a very narrow slice of Internet-enabled people whose over population in a niche has enabled his life to be inflated/overblown to something it was never going to be. He was someone who created the RSS system, as I understand it, and for that he deserves credit. He does not deserve praise. He does not deserve adulation. He certainly doesn't deserve front page prominence on Wikipedia. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support I agree with Jusdafax that this story has legs. The update in the article is better than many I've seen get full blurbs as well. That said, I qualify my support as weak, since though he's not 'a million times short', he does feel a bit less notable than others who would be given a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This wasn't front page coverage for most newspapers, so it isn't one of the most notable deaths we'll have. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I don't see what we gain by adding a generic blurb. If he's as famous as you say, a [nationality] [name] [occupation] [dies] [age] blurb would add very little. Propose an interesting blurb and people might change their minds. —WFCFL wishlist 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nagisa Oshima - RDEdit

Article: Nagisa Oshima (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Important and prolific figure in Japanese cinema. Worth nominating if only for In the Realm of the Senses. --yorkshiresky (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose- That film seems to be mostly notable for just being controversial. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why is the director of a film with low viewing figures and no awards to be considered for a MP position? Is every director represented at Unsimulated sex to be considered RD-worthy? I see nothing in his article that suggests a major international profile, or status at the top of his profession. Even within Japanese cinema, not an evident outstanding player. Kevin McE (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - With respect to the nominator, this one isn't quite notable enough in my book. Jusdafax 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A long, storied and recognized career, far more notable than two blank spots at RD and a long-suicidal petty criminal who knew people who actually designed and founded real accomplishments. 07:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Seems to have had some decent recognition in Japan, I think I've seen one of his films... can't remember which though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

HMVEdit

Article: HMV Group (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Music retailer HMV enters administration.
Alternative blurb: ​Music retailer HMV goes into adminstration after 90 years of trading.
News source(s): http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/15/jobs-hmv-administrators

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Iconic retailer with international prescence and 90 years of history. Arguably the highest profile casualty of the current economic downturn. [59] --yorkshiresky (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Leaning support I think you're right to call this a high profile casualty. There's often business-led nominations on these pages though this kind is often overlooked or objected. It's perhaps not rippling around the world's news pages to the degree I'd like but am certainly supportive of the intention doktorb wordsdeeds 09:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe a more apropriate response would be "Oh dear, how sad, never mind" eh there Doktor? [60]. --IP98 (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; demise of a long-time and well known company. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We really lack such business stories on the main page and it's hard for me to recall what was the last time we posted a corporation or organisation entering administration or going bankrupt (perhaps it was the case with Rangers F.C.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Hostess Brands bankruptcy was briefly posted, but removed. I think that was the last time a similar story was posted. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral I won't !vote either way because I'm still a bit bitter over the s... storm over posting the Hostess bankruptcy. HMV was obviously big in the UK, and had a strong position in Canada, but had spent the last 5 years winding down it's international operations. This seems like the end of a slow death. --IP98 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, going into adminstration isn't the same as bankrupcy, it's possible HMV could still survive this. As per IP98, I think this is one stage in a long slow death, rather than a singular dramatic event. As the operations of the company are mostly restricted to UK and Ireland it doesn't particuarly strike me as a story of great international reprecussions. --LukeSurl t c 12:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. As LukeSurl says, going into administration isn't the same as bankruptcy; also it isn't making big news everywhere (not on the BBC UK mainpage, only a sidestory on the CNN page). But then, it was big in the UK and in India as well, though it started disinvesting in India and Australia many years ago. MikeLynch (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: HMV boss "Confident in finding solution" - Link. This isn't unexpected though I will admit HMV is pretty iconic. I remember the Hostess brands fiasco even though I wasn't even a registered user back then (I think) - a lot of support-votes seemed to be based on Hostess being "An Iconic brand" which to me isn't such a bad rational, yet Hostess is/was a much larger company than HMV if I am correct. And I rather liked Twinkies you know... --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The company isn't in bankruptcy, let alone liquidation. No impact outside of the company (nobody misses Tower Records). Comparing this to Lehman Bros. gives me the context to say no. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Wasn't very influential, and only the most famous companies, with instant name recongnition, deserve posting for bankruptcy. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "Wasn't very influential"? Sorry, but I can't recall a modern record store with such an international reach. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
      • [[[Tower Records]] and Virgin Megastores. At it's height, Tower had a larger global reach than HMV. --IP98 (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ahh, never heard of it unfortunately. Perhaps my "location bias" comes into play. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm really no expert in business, but the article on administration clearly states that, in the UK, 'Administration is analogous to going into "Chapter 11 [bankruptcy]" in the United States'. But personally, even for a reasonable-size company like this one, I would rather post when it closes down. Too bad... I still like having physicals of my records, and as mentioned, HMV is pretty big here in Canada. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Companies whose business revolves around physical media have been dying for a while now. This isn't exactly news in that regard. I guess my support or oppose would depend on whether we posted a blurb for Blockbuster when it hit bankruptcy. If we did, I support. If we didn't, I oppose. Resolute 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: dying is what dinosaurs do. Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Rudeness about the subjects of our nominations is, however, entirely optional. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If I see Nipper looking upset, I'll apologise. HMV has failed to evolve in the way that would have been necessary for them to survive, lest you missed the implication. Kevin McE (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Is this the company that used the logo of the dog looking at the Gramophone? I would support if that image were to be allowed on ITN. Otherwise nobody will know what HMV is. Abductive (reasoning) 22:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This dog?
 
What's that, Churchill? HMV has gone under? Oh no, no, no...
Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Terminal diseases don't get an ITN berth, do they? HMV was amputated in Phila and NYC last century. μηδείς (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just another retailer. Anyway, it is continuing to trade at the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 14Edit


70th Golden Globe AwardsEdit

Article: 70th Golden Globe Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Argo wins Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director for Ben Affleck at the 70th Golden Globe Awards
News source(s): Bloomberg

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support And maybe expand the blurb to say that Argo also won for Best Director too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The consensus in the previous years indicated that the GG are of smaller importance than the Academy Awards so only those should be posted (rationale is that we post a couple of film festivals already). --Tone 08:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The GG's are not the top level award in film; consensus also seems to suggest that they've been treated that way before. If they are posted, the blurb should be left alone; we don't need to list more than what's there. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per 331dot. --LukeSurl t c 11:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weakest of opposes - The Golden Globes have some level of notability and coverage in the U.S. national media anyway... Honestly, posting this comes down to subjective taste.--WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot and Tone. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The Golden Globes may not be the highest up awards for film, but they're still significant. Also, blurbs are cheap when the timer is red. Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as the wins are notable and it gives other award shows a run for the money. μηδείς (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Not my cup of tea, but it is undeniably in the news with widespread coverage. Jusdafax 18:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not even the most important film award in its own country, so I don't understand why it's being considered. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 13Edit


Kachin conflictEdit

Article: Kachin conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fightning between the government and the Kachin Independence Army is ongoing
News source(s): [61]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: TV. poor blurb, i know (but it can be changed). Has been ongoingfor a while, US ambassador commented this week too. KIA shot down govt helicopter gunship yest too. ICG due to "honour" Thein Sein controversially in NYC Lihaas (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Even if we were to list an ongoing conflict, there are many other ones in the List of ongoing military conflicts that may be more appropriate to highlight. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Been ongoing for over a year now. Would need a blurb that talks of a singular, noteworthy event. LukeSurl t c 10:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above, and indeed as below with Belfast. There's no single "hook" on which we can hang a blurb, largely because there's not been a single event worthy of a nomination. We are not a news ticker. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I agree with Doktorbuk that there's no single event here to hang a blurb on. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would be fantastic to post if it were the beginning of said conflict, but it's not. DarthBotto talkcont 00:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not understanding what update there is to the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief JusticeEdit

Article: Impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake (talk, history)
Blurb: Sri Lankan Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake is removed from office by President Mahinda Rajapaksa after being impeached by Parliament.
Alternative blurb: Sri Lankan Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake is removed from office after having been impeached.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Impeachment of chief justice is noteworthy in itself but this is the first impeachment of a chief justice in Sri Lankan history and has resulted in a constitutional crisis. --obi2canibetalk contr 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - significant incident with encyclopaedic notable consequences. Also, the article is in very good shape. --LukeSurl t c 21:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Corruption of a major government official and its consequence is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The headline does sound notable but BBC and Al Jazeera English websites both don't have this on their front page at all currently. It appears this could result in fallout that might be more notable--report it then.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb, an uncommon near-head-of-state occurance. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but note the controversial circumstances--Supreme Court said the motion was unconstitutional and she has refused to leave office. Maybe something like The Sri Lankan Parliament passes a motion to impeach Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake despite a Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional. C628 (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Extensive and very good article - the sort of content we should be showcasing. Story now on the front page of BBC News and reported extensive by the international media, including Reuters, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Independent and the Hindustan Times (see the article for links to them). A particularly notable impeachment given that (a) it ignores a Supreme Court ruling; (b) Bandaranayake refuses to recognise it; (c) it has sparked protests in Sri Lanka, as well as lawyers and judges effectively going on strike in protest; and (d) it has drawn international criticism (including from the UN, the Commonwealth,, Britain, Canada, the US and the International Commission of Jurists). Neljack (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment On reflection, the blurb should reflect the disputed legality of the removal, per NPOV. Perhaps this could be done by adding the words "despite the Supreme Court ruling the impeachment unconstitutional." If that's too long the nominator's shorter alternative blurb could be used, with the words I have proposed added. C628's blurb refers only to Parliament, when it was the President who removed her after impeachment by Parliament, so I don't support that blurb. Neljack (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is a very important story and I think satisfies our requirements for the front page without an issue doktorb wordsdeeds 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready. It seems there's consensus that this is notable and the article is in a good state. --LukeSurl t c 14:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. I used a slightly edited version of what C268 proposed as a blurb; I concur in thinking that the blurb should mention the controversy because that's what makes it especially notable. SpencerT♦C 22:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    It think the blurb is missing some detail; the impeachment by parliament occurred on 11 January. It was the ratification of this decision by President Rajapaksa that occurred on the 13th. Currently the blurb makes no mention of the Presidential action. Also the term "impeachment" implies only that the individual was formally accused, but not necessarily that they were removed from office (e.g. the Impeachment of Bill Clinton). --LukeSurl t c 23:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
    Suggested blurb: Sri Lankan Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake refuses to accept her dismissal by President Mahinda Rajapaksa following impeachment by Parliament, citing a Supreme Court ruling declaring the action unconstitutional. --LukeSurl t c 23:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hm, I see what you mean but the suggested blurb is quite lengthy; I'll put it up for the meantime because that's more accurate but I'm still open for suggestions or other possibilities. SpencerT♦C 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

January 12Edit


99942 ApophisEdit

Article: 99942 Apophis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New data effectively rules out a 2036 earth impact for the near-Earth asteroid 99942 Apophis.
News source(s): NASA

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There have been a number of estimates making it ever more unlikely to hit. It seems fitting to post this final "now we know it won't hit". Thue (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Neutral the article is excellent, graphics, structure the kind of thing we should highly at ITN. I think the orange tag could be easily resolved. Neutral because it seems a bit odd to post something that wont happen in 3023 years. The odds were "only" 2.7%. Either way, this means I have to update a lot of code. --IP98 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I know you put the "only" in quotes, but a 2.7% chance if a 1480 Megaton impact event was a very big deal. A non-trivial chance of such an even should never be connected to the word "only", in quotes or not!Thue (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That was the peak estimate in 2004, shortly after discovery and while the orbit had not yet been accurately determined. Before the 2013 flyby, the chance was 1 in 250,000 (according to our article). Modest Genius talk 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the crux of the story is an event not occurring, indeed, an event not occurring in 23 years time. ITN is for things happening now. LukeSurl t c 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Important predictions are news too. Predictions make newspaper headlines all the time. Thue (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose something that won't happen, and something that really only made news because it won't happen. If, in five years time, NASA work out they made yet another calculation error, and we're all doomed, run it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Great article, shame about the nomination. There's nothing for the front page here, is there? Something which might not have happened anyway is proven not to be possible. It's not news, it's a conclusion. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because this is a good article, in the news, and of great readership interest, which is what ITN is for. The prediction part is beside the point. μηδείς (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • While I do understand your point, I don't think we'd be featuring a story about Jenna Jameson getting married, which is a featured article that would also be in the news and of great readership interest. Significance should still play an important part in ITN. SpencerT♦C 02:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • So Jenna Jameson is a recently discovered global threat under observation by various space agencies? To be serious, a comparison here http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/99942%20Apophis doesn't bear out your comparison. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, Jenna gets an average of around 7,000 hits a day. This asteroid got around 2,000 a day until it was confirmed it wasn't an issue, and now it's heading back to it's 2,000 day average. Jenna's article would doubtless go into orbit should she announce a marriage or something similar. So these stats really aren't useful either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Most folk round here have long since realised that using page view stats is pretty much nonsense, as they always get artificially inflated. I'd always advise people to ignore anyone who uses page view stats. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Artificially inflated? as in by readers? If you're making some sort of actual, not just made up accusation, give the evidence or citation. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
              • If there's coverage of an issue out there in the real world, then there would be a spike in readership stats, before it falls back to normal (as Rambling Man has shown with his example). They're unreliable - something is popular, artificially, when there is coverage. You can't use them as evidence to back up your claims because anyone can show how a page gathers attention at the peak of its outside Wikipedia coverage doktorb wordsdeeds 05:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Essentially the story here is that something which was highly unlikely has now become extremely unlikely. I don't see that as significant. The article isn't that good either - it's lacking in citations and a large chunk of it is a long list of unreferenced proseline. Modest Genius talk 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I don't think this is the kind of non-event that should be included in ITN. It wasn't very likely in the first place, and now it's just even more so. Should we post every time the estimate of the end of the universe is revised? No. Same with this. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

2012–2013 Northern Ireland protestsEdit

Article: 2012–2013 Northern Ireland protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Violent protests occur in Northern Ireland over flying the Union Jack at Belfast City Hall
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Protests started a while ago but are still onlgoing. This sectarian bent comes less than 1 year after the last IMC report --Lihaas (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: There's no new development here; the "protests" have been violent since they started over a month ago. While I'd have supported their addition then, it's pretty misleading to state that they have "turned violent" now. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose As often is the case, Lihaas is wrong to say they've turned violent all of a sudden. There's been violence for the best part of a month, if not more. I'm not sure how to handle this nomination because it's been going on for so long and there's plenty of articles to choose from. I'd go to support if things can be worked out somehow doktorb wordsdeeds 22:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As is always the case, doktorbuk has nothing but venom and spite and NPA on his ITNC comments.
Further, ive reworded the blurb now to indicate it dint "turn" violent.Lihaas (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that they're about six weeks old though. GRAPPLE X 22:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as an "in the news" article since this has been going on for around six weeks now. If anything, lately it's getting less relevant. People are talking and trying to arrive at a solution. If this had been nominated five weeks ago, perhaps.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment: Both Doktorbuk and Grapple X above commentators have good points in regards the development of the protests. Essentially it is that the protests have lasted so long that makes them quite notable. The structure of ITN doesn't really address long-term stories like this that well, being better suited to acute, single events. It's tricky, as cumulatively this is a reasonable candidate, but nothing acutely notable has happened on this particular date. LukeSurl t c 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
In response to your above comment, dokotorbuk said "As often is the case, Lihaas is wrong". And youll find through archives numerous instances of him biting at me instead of refraining from NPA and comment on content. I thus stand by what i say unless and until he wishes to change that pattern.
Also see CNN and Chicago TribuneLihaas (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
See what? More reports about scuffles in Northern Ireland that have been going on for six weeks? What's the news here? Do you want a sticky? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not being spiteful, I'm underlining how here (and somewhere further down this page), there's been reason to point out an error in your conclusions of a story. If I can sidestep this tangent, I have to echo the point made above about this on-going unrest. It's been violent (in the widest sense of that word) for almost a month. If we can all work out an article and a blurb, then perhaps we can move towards posting, but if you're suggesting that things have become violent only now, then you're misguided. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find it impossible to express myself with decorum, but will make myself explicit if necessary--it's just no good all around. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but suggest renominating if a noteworthy singular event occurs (sadly, that probably means deaths). LukeSurl t c 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: relevant date for nomination dropped off the bottom of the page several weeks ago. Scale of protests absolutely trifling by world standards. Kevin McE (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale. Whilst the protests are ongoing, the real event was the first set. No significant developments have occurred - 'it's still going on' is all that can be said really. If something changes, there's definite scope for ITN, but not right now. Modest Genius talk 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These aren't protesters, but chav scum who are causing trouble. I doubt they could even spell loyalist, let alone engage in a political debate about it. Best ignore these idiots instead of giving them more attention. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I happen to agree with the oppose, but which part of "chav scum" isn't racist namecalling? μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Neither "chav" nor "scum" are recognised racial terms related to people in Northern Ireland. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I agree with Medeis. 'Chav' is a racist term - the fact that it does not, technically, describe the people Lugnuts is applying it to is neither here nor there. The meaning of 'scum', affixed to a racist epithet, should be obvious. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
While I find Lugnuts' contribution characteristically unhelpful, I am totally bemused at the notion that chav describes or defines a race, or that its application is limited to people of any given race. Classist, if you wish, but by no stretch of the imagination racist. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

January 11Edit

[Posted to RD] Nguyen Khanh - RDEdit

Article: Nguyen Khanh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): No English-language sources yet, but several Vietnamese-language sources [62][63] all cite [64] as the main source. He reportedly died January 11.

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former chief of state, prime minister, and General of South Vietnam, major Vietnam War figure. DHN (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, at the very least RD, maybe more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD per ITN/DC #1. Though just announced, he died on Jan 11 and the post should be back dated that time, and expire off with the rest of the Jan 11 items. --IP98 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD as a former head of state and government. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 11:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment He died on the 11th, shouldn't he be to the right of Swartz? --IP98 (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. Both on Jan 11. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Largest known structure in the universe detectedEdit

Renomination posted on 16 Jan, moved to appropriate date per instructions.

Article: Huge-LQG (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A team of astronomers detects the Huge-LQG, the largest structure in the known Universe, which appears to challenge a portion of Albert Einstein's Theory of relativity.
Alternative blurb: ​A team of astronomers detects the Huge Large Quasar Group, the largest structure in the known Universe
News source(s): [65][66]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This story is really, really big. Jusdafax 23:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - No, the collection of objects is really big. The story is really small, and we already have, or had, a thread about it further down this page. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
hmmm...and this redlink nomination..?Lihaas (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I am renominating. Previous objections were largely based on the lack of an article, which has grown respectable in the past 48 hours. Subject is getting across-the-board coverage in mainstream media, and the discovery now appears to challenge Einstein's theory of a 'smooth cosmos.' I'll add that to the blurb. Jusdafax 23:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
And yet, the other nomination is still open. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a conflict of interest, I should think, so if someone could give it a quick SNOW close... thanks. I will add the original nominator to the article. Jusdafax 00:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BArticle_updated.5D_Largest_known_structure_in_the_universe_discovered has now been closed. SpencerT♦C 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Spencer! It seemed too heavy-handed for me to do that. Also, I have no problems with DarthBotto getting credit. He was just ahead of the curve on the first try. Jusdafax 02:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support nice job. Easy pass for a minority topic. --IP98 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment My problem is the challenging relativity part. Challenging Einstein usually doesnt pay off as proven by a certain muon recently. However we did post that muon carefully and i'll be ok if this one is made clear as well that 1.2Bly is the limit that this structure seems to breaking. Right now blurb is a bit vague and need to be more specific -- Ashish-g55 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Agreed, there should be no mention of the Einstein bit. It's a record, simple as that. If we can post a record number of balls kicked into a net in 12 months, we can post this for sure. --IP98 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Einstein stuff can certainly be removed if it is sufficiently disliked for the blurb. Let's get consensus on having a blurb at all. I forgot that this qualifies as a minority topic, so it shouldn't be a bitter struggle. Jusdafax 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This should probably also be the more explicit Huge Large Quasar Group in the blurb for clarity to the readership, otherwise it sounds like a financial instrument. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
No objections here; I was going off the article name. Jusdafax 02:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll change the blurb then to a piped link. I edited the article a bit and made a redirect from the full name. I probably should have just moved it instead, but at this point I don't want to cause formatting trouble, so I will use the piping. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not featuring in news, and we no longer have a policy of preference for "minority topics". Moved to appropriate date: work on article does not change the instructions. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The story is most definitely featuring in the news. The prior wait votes below amount to present support votes now. This is pretty clear cut--is the largest thing in the universe unpostworthy, while the oldest woman in nebraska for two weeks was? μηδείς (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Your Google link disproves your claim. Adding the News filter, the results are overwhelmingly from specialist journals, not mainstream news sources. There are 21 headlines on the BBC Science and Environment page, and this is not among them; guardian.co.uk has a specific space news page: 28 stories on it, and this one is nowhere to be seen. Kevin McE (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The BBC Science and Environment page links to its article on this subject in the "watch-listen" section in the top right hand corner, the google news search largest structure universe provides plenty of links, the first one for me being the Times of India. Martin451 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Like I said: 21 Science and Environment headlines, and it is not among them. It is accessible, but not immediately visible: that is not giving a story a high profile. The google search you suggest also gives a set of results in which major news sites are conspicuous by their absence. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

[Added to Recent deaths] Aaron Swartz diesEdit

Article: Aaron Swartz (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): BBC

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support For RD ticker. --Jayron32 21:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
oppose ITN is becoming a silly ool for posting most deaths (with death posting being well over 50% ecerntly), also his notability IMO is not outstanding. Deaths in XXXX is good enoughLihaas (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - being an American is for me not a good enough reason to justify this persons inclusion at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Is that in the nom? --IP98 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No but lets be honest here.. had this guy been lets say Romanian this nom would have never been made. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
What exactly are you basing that on? I don't fully understand your remarks. The nomination makes no mention of the deceaseds nationality. Was there a Romanian web developer who died recently and was intentionally not nominated to the front page of the English Wikipedia? --IP98 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I had no idea what nationality he was. As an RSS pioneer and someone making the front page of the international BBC news page, it transcended the nationality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that this vote (or !vote) is content-free enough to be ignored. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, utterly irrelevant 'reason'. No-one even mentioned his nationality. Modest Genius talk 01:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notoriety seems to be what is essentially petty crime (JSTOR and PACER). We don't post the execution of murderers, we definitely don't post the suicide of a book warez pirate. Co-authorizing the RSS specification is no where near creating C (which was rightfully posted). Finally no evidence in his article that he passes ITN/DC #2, which is the most important criteria. --IP98 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Presumably "some people" found him important in his field if his death is featuring on the BBC News homepage? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Web space is cheap space. Let me know if it gets more than a 20 second mention on the news at 10. --IP98 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Heh, funny guy. In that case, disregard any mentions on any news websites worldwide. What a ridiculous argument. Funniest post of 2013 so far. Well done!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks! I'll be sure to oppose the nomination for your win of the "FIFA Most sarcastic Wikipedian of the year" award. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    No, FIFA don't administer such awards, they tend to focus on association football in case you weren't aware. But thanks! Still laughing at your ridiculous argument. Giggles all round, nice fillip for us all for the new year. Well done!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Your mindless sarcasm, Lionel Messi, all irrelevant bullshit to me. If the front page of bbc.co.uk is so valuable, please nominate the pollution in Beijing or Doha's disappearing old city. I still haven't stopped laughing at your absurd insistence on implied notability from 80 square pixels of web space. Right behind new taxes in Greece right? Really? --IP98 (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Wow, take a break dude. "irrelevant bullshit"? "absurd insistence... from 80 square pixels of web space" [sic]. Really? Your comments here severely detract from some of your more cogent arguments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I got derailed at your "laughing" and derisive remarks. But please let me know when you nominate the new Greek taxes. --IP98 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, when financial apocalypse gets more relevant again, I'll let you know. In the meantime, I suggest you chill out and find someone else to take a pop at about Messi's ITN etc. If you don't like the process, change it. If you can't be bothered to change it, don't moan about it. Thanks for the lols. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    No no, it's on bbc.co.uk today, so it must be notable today. You don't want "disregard mentions on news sites" do you? Please, get a nom up, it must be important, it got some space at bbc.co.uk. I'm perfectly chill, just trying to learn the ropes here. If something on the front page of bbc.co.uk it is notable? Then, please, please, please nominate new Greek taxes, pollution in Beijing, and Dohas' old city straight away. Lickity split! --IP98 (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Are you still commenting here?! I suggested this nomination was notable since the BBC had noted it. Nothing more about any other news story. If you have something to complain about, take it elsewhere. Claiming, as you did originally, that the BBC is not a reliable source for news stories is absurd and you've entirely undermined your contributions thus far. Cheers for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    Where did I make the statement that "the BBC is not a reliable source for news stories"? I said that web space is cheap space and doesn't establish notability. I certainly did not make the statement you've suggested. --IP98 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    By suggesting "web space is cheap" and that I needed to wait to see it on the news, you attempted to undermine the relevance of the BBC news homepage. You have a grudge. Don't take it out on me or this news item. You hated the Messi article being run, I didn't even vote for or against it, so leave me alone. If you want to change the process, do that, don't go on endlessly here about something in your mind you dislike about this process. I'm still in favour of running this article, most others aren't, so don't stress, you'll be fine and it won't run, and we can wait until the Greeks take another 50 billion euro bailout and all that. Whatever. That's not really what Wikipedia's ITN is about. Perhaps you should consider working over at Wikinews if that's your thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    You derided my remarks way before I mentioned FIFA. I was responding to your sarcasm with more sarcasm. I'm opposed to this for the reasons given, not Messi. "Leave me alone", your remarks were insulting and hurtful, and you totally misunderstood my initial argument. Next time keep your sarasm and your "lolz" off of ITN please. --IP98 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    I doubt this super-indented discussion is helping anyone. Can an admin collapse please? LukeSurl t c 23:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    I think that pointing out that you don't really know what you're talking about counts as "helpful". --Calton | Talk 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD ticker, unexpected early death (at 26 years old) of a "co-author of an early RSS specification". Seems like a no-brainer for the ticker once the article is improved sufficiently. (I don't even understand Lihaas' oppose, linguistically or logically). I'm not sure the reason for nom was "being an American", either. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. My immediate thought is "no". But I also think we should wait and see how the news media treats it. The background story, the circumstances and the age perhaps give it more significance than "barely famous computer person dies" - maybe we should allow the BBC et al to be the judge of that. Formerip (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a major figure. Death not reported as a major front page news outside of anglosaxon papers so far Italy, France (only in the quick news ticker), France (minor news toward the bottom), Ireland, Spain, Germany, India, India. Let's save RD ticker for major, notable figures and remember that we should aim to cover all subjects and not be biased towards IT and the Web. Snowolf How can I help? 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Just as a point of information, it's being reported in La Monde's homepage, far from "minor news toward the bottom", very much in the top 1/4 of the homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) It has now started to be covered by major sources, as such, support for the RD ticker. Snowolf How can I help? 02:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for both Not notable enough under usual measurements so can't possibly be allowed on the front page. Very, very minor "interest group". Not carried on many news sources in a significant place. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Further comment. News isn't carried everywhere instantly. I see that this is now on the homepages of Le Monde, El Mundo and La Stampa, for example. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As nominator I might suggest we wait until some facts become known. It's on the front page of the BBC already; it might get carried more broadly. However, even if the fact that the non English language media don't cover this turns out to be true, those media ALL use RSS which Swartz co-developed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ITN list. The death in itself is not that extraordinary, and not of enough impact, for ITN listing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for either, regardless of the continued, baseless, racist Anti-Americanism that no admin seems to care to address. The guy seems to have been "notable" as a serial petty thief, not someone recognized as at the top of any field or close to it. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Support' for actual item, not merely RD ticker. Hugely influential activist who died young; that alone should be sufficient, idiotic claims of "anti-Americanism" or "not a major figure" notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment New York Times obituary (currently on front page of the global edition with small image.) --hydrox (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Significant figure in his field, unexpected death, widespread media coverage, decent enough article, updated. Ticks all the boxes. Modest Genius talk 01:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD ticker - He's on the front page of multiple news sites. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD ticker as nominator. It's had enough global coverage and I think the co-developer of RSS is pretty notable. Plus the death at the young age.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD Not so much as a software engineer, but as an online activist. His death is gaining wide global coverage ("widely regarded as a very important figure in his field"). At least in addition to those mentioned earlier a front page scoop in newspapers from Sweden to Australia and from India to Canada. --hydrox (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Per Rambling (also DYK may be an option). Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    DYK is not also an option. GRAPPLE X 02:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it probably would not be an option. It's not a new article, and a massive amount of expansion would be required to bring it up to meet the 5x expansion requirement. SpencerT♦C 02:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have read the article, but I stand corrected. I was just looking at bytes in the page history to guesstimate the amount of prose in the article, and I did not check the initial amount of prose when the new flurry of editing was occurring. This is the article when improvement started so this might possibly be eligible for DYK given enough expansion. SpencerT♦C 06:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Still 8kb of prose away from being big enough; that means it needs to nearly double in size within the next three or four days. Like I say, not really an option. GRAPPLE X 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to Recent deaths. Consensus seems to have emerged. Thue (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ticker OK, blurb no. A case where heavy internet-users (a group that overlaps significantly with wiki editors) are likely to be more interested than the general public. LukeSurl t c 12:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This really should never even have been posted, but was for the exact reason Luke gave. Any objective assay rules against an upgrade. The guy was associated with things that were associated with things, and his biggest claim to fame was 4 million petty thefts. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Does one assess the suitability of an individual death for ITN objectively (by surveying reliable sources) or subjectively (by personally assessing the merits of the deceased)? I guess it's not an either or, but there has to be a threshold where the objective evidence (the sheer amount of news coverage) should to some degree preempt our editors' subjective assessment of the topic. Though I kind of agree that there wasn't so much actual concrete technical merits to his name, his death still received a very considerable global news coverage. Which puts it In the news. --hydrox (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] C.A.R. ceasefire agreementEdit

Article: 2012–2013 Central African Republic conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Central African Republic, the government signs a ceasefire agreement with rebels, ending a month of conflict and establishing a new coalition government.
News source(s): [67]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was nominated previously, and the conclusion seemed to be to wait until a peace deal was formed or Bangui was taken by the rebels. So now a ceasefire agreement has been formed, and under this agreement a new coalition government will be established. Updated article section is at 2012–2013_Central_African_Republic_conflict#Ceasefire_agreement. --SpencerT♦C 07:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Important conflict. The ceasefire agreement seems stable.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
support the entire conflict was otable (for the interim even higher headlines than Syria) and this is better late than neverLihaas (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - it is time to draw attention to this conflict. Olegwiki (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with yu , but ITN is not to "draw attention". Its to highlight WP articles of events in the news ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, positive turn for major conflict. Mikael Häggström (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-post support. But that's a mighty long blurb. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Question SHould we link to the Seleka coalition (also the agreement was with the po0litical opposition as well), led to dissolution of assembly. Maybe we should revisit the blurb?
Consider linking to Central African Republic general election, 2013 in some form. Im just updating the details that led to the electionLihaas (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Séléka Coalition is currently a redlink so there's nothing to link to (I'd obviously prefer using that instead of "rebels" if there was a suitable enough article), and also we can't post every single part of the compromise in the blurb. The coalition government is being created now, and those general elections will be occurring later within the year. Also the elections article is just a copy/paste from the conflict article and doesn't really add anything new to the blurb. We can post the election when it occurs. SpencerT♦C 02:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)



[Article updated] Largest known structure in the universe discoveredEdit

Consensus not to post this particular article, Large quasar group. SpencerT♦C 02:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Large quasar group (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A large quasar group, the largest known structure in the universe, is discovered.
Alternative blurb: ​A collection of supermassive black holes over four billion light years across, is discovered, which theoretically challenges existing cosmological models.
News source(s): Fox News, The Huffington Post
Nominator's comments: Arguably the most significant discovery in the field of astronomy in recent history. DarthBotto talkcont 21:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hardly This will need an updated target article, but "challenges cosmological models" comes as close to "violates the laws of physics" as Gordon Brown comes to Attila the Hun. μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The two phrases actually mean very different things. Formerip (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'll assume you are joking that a former treas sec actually is like an injun scalping people from horseback. But if you aren't, you'll hafta 'splain yerself. μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Former prime minister, I think you'll find. Not entirely sure what a "treas sec" is meant to be. 91.125.81.135 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
To explain the analogy, only cause it was asked, he was famous as T-Blair's Treas-Sec. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
To you, maybe. He was prime minister for nearly three years. Was he not famous during that time? And the term you're looking for is "chancellor" – "treas sec" is meaningless. Kindly do some research next time. 91.125.81.135 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, let's not get caught up in a discussion about a smartass response. I've changed the altblurb to better emphasize the article. DarthBotto talkcont 00:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I want to support this but I don't think the content is ready for it. If "large quasar group" is an existing theory, it needs an article to flesh out the 5Ws covered for that topic, with a subsection for this particular large quasar group. I see how it's a big deal, but to go the the main page the article has to inform and hopefully interest the drive-by reader, not baffle them. I'm totally unqualified to do the required work myself. --IP98 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. --IP98 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not least because a scattered formation of 73 quasars cannot sensibly be called an 'object', but also because I'd be willing to bet that the margins of error for the size of this thing and the Sloan Great Wall overlap. And also because this doesn't seem like headline news, except to deep-field specialists. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article is currently too short and needs expansion. SpencerT♦C 18:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Much as I like astronomy stories (and was actually involved in the PR for this announcement), it's a very technical subject. The theory of large-scale structure is poorly constrained as it is, so an object which is 'too large' by a small factor isn't going to revolutionise our understanding of cosmology. This story is of interest to astronomers, and cosmologists in particular, but not so much to the general encyclopaedia reader. There are all sorts of subtle observational effects that affect the result. Also, the article doesn't distinguish between LQGs as a general class, and this particular LQG. Modest Genius talk 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As hinted above, the definition of what has been discovered, and indeed the definition of "discovered", is so inaccurate that putting it on the front page without improving the article seems hasty doktorb wordsdeeds 19:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I wouldn't really consider this until it has an article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] French intervention in MaliEdit

Article: 2012–present Northern Mali conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The President of France, Francois Hollande, said that French armed forces had come to the aid of Mali troops fighting Islamist rebels
Alternative blurb: ​France commits troops to aid government forces in the Northern Mali conflict
Alternative blurb (2): The French Armed Forces intervene in the Northern Mali conflict, parachuting troops and launching air strikes.
News source(s): Guardian NYT Washington Post CNN Reuters

Nominator's comments: seems significant - French intervention Olegwiki (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: I actually just wanted to nominate this myself. This is a significant intervention with foreign troops on the ground + air strikes. One of the top stories in international, English-language news media (see sources above). --RJFF (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The only major foreign power to intervene.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support also added an altblurb, which I think is worded better. --Jayron32 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for altblurb. Signifcant event for sure.Egeymi (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Which one, please? One or two? --RJFF (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. Whichever one is fewer characters. Formerip (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 1--will remain neutral to the posting itself for now, but concise factual altblurb>>blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
PS, we don't even need to say Mali twice: "France commits troops to aid government forces in the Northern Mali conflict" is even meilleur. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to improve the first altblurb--feel free to revert. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb 1. Thue (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Image? Should we add an image of Sévaré which seems to be close to the current centre of fighting and the place where the French troops landed? File:Sevare panneau.jpg for example. A crossroads is even quite symbolic for the conflict. --RJFF (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose its only rhetoric, no boots on the ground. Meanwhile, in CAR a peace deal was signed with a call for election in a year and a dissolution of the assembly..Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
From [68]:
The capture of Konna by the rebels - who have imposed strict Sharia Islamic law in northern Mali - had caused panic among residents in the towns of Mopti and Sevare, 60 km (40 miles) to the south. Calm returned, however, after residents reported Western soldiers and foreign military aircraft arriving late on Thursday at Sevare's airport - the main one in the region.
That is indeed boot on the ground. The "commits" formulation of the blurb sounds fine to me. Thue (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that between nomination and posting, the article was moved to "Mali conflict", which is obviously not a great title (it fails WP:CRITERIA in terms of precision). That's being discussed on the article talkpage, but maybe we could amend out blurb by adding the word "current", which would make it read a little better. Formerip (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And it was moved again, so I did add current and Northern, since that where the article ended up being moved to. SpencerT♦C 18:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 10Edit


[Posted] PKK assassinated in Paris - Sakine CansizEdit

Article: Sakine Cansiz (talk, history)
Blurb: Sakine Cansiz, one of the co-founders of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, and two other Kurdish activists shot dead in Paris.
News source(s): channel 4

Article updated

Nominator's comments: seems significant probably aimed to disrupt peace talks - The French interior minister said the deaths were "without doubt an execution". EdwardLane (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support I was shocked to hear the details of this story. It seems to meet our criteria for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 11:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Given the fact that the organisation is active in the whole region of Kurdistan, which covers more than a country, the assassination seems to be of persons leading a party of much importance. In addition, it's not so common to see such things happening in Paris and it surely adds extra plus to its notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -Major event for a notable organization.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, significant impact on current negotiations. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Political assassination in a western capital? Definitely suitable for ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major event! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you all. She's nominated for DYK, BTW. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK? Y, IJRIAITN. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what your alphabet soup means, FIP, but I think Drmies's point is - to put words in his mouth - that there is a missing "updater" (creator) parameter in the form above. LadyofShalott 00:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it means, Did you know? Yes, I just read it at In the News. -- tariqabjotu 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was a sort of acronym joke. But not a wonderful one, so thanks, Tariq, for saving me from having to explain it myself. Formerip (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh. OK. Well there is still a missing attribution. I don't know enough about how ITN works to assume to add it myself. LadyofShalott 02:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not bad, FormerIP, not bad! Drmies (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bomb blasts in PakistanEdit

Article: January 2013 Pakistan bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: Bomb blasts in Pakistan kill over 100 people and injure 270.
News source(s): Hindu Times CBC HP The Independent (Ireland)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Being called "one of the deadliest days in recent years" in Pakistan. Four bombs, two in both Quetta (80+ dead) and Mingora (20+). Death toll is unconfirmed and floating from source to source, but it's accepted that it's exceeding 100. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment "Bomb blasts in Pakistan kills..."? Might want to fix that before it causes a problem. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Shhhhhhhhhhh... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as significant enough for a mention. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Pretty high causalities. Bombings have been increasing in recent weeks.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Also I created January 2013 Pakistan bombings, but I was beaten to the nom. C628 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant terrorist attacks – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, significant attacks that deserve a main page appearance. TBrandley (what's up) 01:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. Article is in decent shape. SpencerT♦C 01:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb seems to be stylistically not appropriate with bolded article in front of the message. Change into something like "More than 100 people are killed and 270 injured in several bomb blasts in Pakistan." makes more sense to me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done. In the future, WP:ERRORS will give you a faster response. SpencerT♦C 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, from my experience you get a quicker response here. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 9Edit


7th Anniversary of The Howard Stern Show on SiriusEdit

WP:SNOW close, WP:OTD is a more suitable nomination location. SpencerT♦C 01:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: The Howard Stern Show (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The Howard Stern Show celebrates 7 years on the air at Sirius Satellite Radio
News source(s): http://howardstern.com/archive.hs?h=2021

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Monumental. 76.73.131.165 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As we generally confine anniversaries (and even then, usually 10 or 100-year ones to OTD), I suggest the nominator withdraw.--WaltCip (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Seven years is not a long run for a radio show. 'Monumental' is a preposterous overstatement. When the Grand Ole Opry marks its 100th year of broadcasting (in 2025) perhaps we'll mention that. (And even then, probably not in ITN, because as WaltCip correctly notes, anniversaries are not news.) ETA: Apparently Lørdagsbarnetimen predates the Grand Ole Opry by just under a year, making it the longest-running radio show that's still going. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment to nominator: While we posted the ending of the longest running drama in television history (Guiding Light), anniversaries are more suitable for WP:OTD (though generally they are restricted to significant, rounder numbered anniversary years). Best, SpencerT♦C 01:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

James M. Buchanan for RDEdit

Article: James M. Buchanan (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

Article updated

Nominator's comments: He was a well-known economist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1986. His extensive contribution to the public choice theory is considered fundamental in this sub-field, and his name is generally included in most of the academic works pertaining fundamentals of economics. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The article has only be updated by three senetences so far. A comment on his importance from a couple noted financial papers should help. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I have added comments from US and European sources calling the Nobel Laureate the leader of public choice theory for a generation and the "Founder of the New Political Economy" which makes his standing and influence in the field clear. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pretty neat work. Nergaal (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable, article updated, and a good addition to RD. Jusdafax 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, I think it is very appropriate for RD.Egeymi (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Can someone not myself mark this ready? (Or just post it, admin, hint...hint) μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has long been established that "merely" being a Nobel laureate is not a pass to ITN. I see no evidence of bringing the subject to the wider public, low page viewer stats, no coverage of death outside obits columns and business columns. In short, no non-specialist interest evident, so little grounds for inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you check Public choice theory before expressing your opinion? Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Just because a field of study includes the word public in its name, it does not mean it has gained much public attention. Kevin McE (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
And why exactly would that be relevant and not original research/synthesis? If there is no wide coverage of his person in reliable sources, then he's not that important. If his biography has very low page viewer stats, then he's probably not a widely-known individual who belongs on the front page. Mocctur (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. He is not a Nobel laurate and in any event merely being a Nobel laureate (or in his case: A Sveriges Riksbank laureate) doesn't mean that one's death is ITN material. Vast amounts of people have received these prizes and we post it when they receive their prize, not when they die. The treshold for posting deaths is much higher, usually only heads of state or extremely famous people get posted. Before his death, this guy's biography had around 100 readers a day (compared to 16,000 on average for Albert Einstein, a long dead scientist). 100 readers a day is what relatively obscure people's biographies get. (if we limit comparison to economists, John Maynard Keynes, also long since dead, has around 2,000 daily views on average). Mocctur (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Well that's...interesting, maybe you should write the Nobel Committee and tell them your opinion of their handing out those prizes? In any case, he's been nominated not merely on the Nobel win, but on the accolades of his peers and the press for creating a whole branch/school of economics. As for heads of state, this is an RD nomination. He doesn't have to be a head of state who dies in office in order just to get a ticker notice. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
He hasn't won any Nobel. Maybe you should write to the Nobel family with your new information that he has received one of their 5 prizes? There is no such thing as "the Nobel Committee" that is involved in the Riksbanken Prize, there are 5 separate Nobel Committees selecting the recipients of the prizes established by the Nobel family and they have nothing to do with the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences, and the Nobel family has expliticly forbidden the use of the term Nobel prize in connection with this completely unrelated prize. In any event, for a supposedly super-famous scientist (as we must assume as his death is nominated to be featured on ITN), his biography is extremely lacking and short. Mocctur (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We established two things recently - Nobel Prizes do not automatically mean notability, and death ticker does not mean lowering standards. Both those issues are important here. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't suppose being a nobel laureate was ever specified as a reason not to post, merely that it is not of itself sufficient reason to oppose. I opposed, but relative novelty of her sex and nationality among science laureates/ITNRD nominees, and her centenarian status, were used to argue for inclusion. Precedent does not obligate us. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doktorbuk. --IP98 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So we don't post the death of a world-renowned and notable economist, because some users want to illustrate the point that the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is not a 'real' Nobel Prize? He was a distinguished and influential economist with or without Nobel Prize. Having received one of the most prestigious awards that someone in his field can win is certainly an additional point, although it is not the only criterion. Support obviously, and remind others that this is not for a full blurb, but only for recent deaths. The criteria are notability and significant update. The article has been updated sufficiently and in his field, Buchanan was clearly of high notability. --RJFF (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't post if the only reason we are given to post is an award (at best) no higher in status than a Nobel prize, given that we have a long standing consensus that nobel laureate status is not sufficient to mandate posting. If you wish to present evidence of a public profile and impact much higher than that of the "typical" laureate, you might change people's opinion: that is the purpose of discussion and debate. Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Rizana Nafeek was executedEdit

Article: Rizana Nafeek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Rizana Nafeek (1988 february - 9 January 2013) was executed in Saudi Arabia for unintentional homicide done at her age of 17. Asian Human Rights Commission has ruled that Nafeek's case has received the most attention from International human rights.
Alternative blurb: ​Despite international protest, Sri-Lankan maid Rizana Nafeek, then 17, is executed in Saudia Arabia for killing an infant in her care.
News source(s): http://www.dailymirror.lk/top-story/24864-rizana-nafeek-executed-.html

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 --Singhalawap (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Since this case has attracted a lot of attention I believe this qualifies to be in the news. --Lee (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is very important news regarding human rights of teenagers. Cwijayakoon (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This news must be appeared in "In the News" for it must arrest the attention of wide community and should be discussed for of its importance regarding the human rights. Upali Giniwelle (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest a shorter blurb, if possible. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this a shocking case, and questions should be asked in the legislatures of the western powers as to why they continue to regard this barbarous regime as an ally. However, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, so let's keep the discussion here focussed on whether this is a genuinely major news story, rather than whether it's a genuinely grotesque abuse of human rights (which it obviously is). AlexTiefling (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting, oppose current blurb First, the statement "Asian Human Rights Commission has ruled that Nafeek's case has received the most attention from International human rights" does not belong. The years don't belong. I'm also concerned by the statement "unintentional homicide". While it may have been unintentional, it seems that she was not executed for unintentional homicide. Per [69] she was "beheaded for smothering the infant after an argument with the child's mother in the town of al-Dwadmi.". (Wording of the Saudi Interior Ministry). How can we word this to make it clear that she was beheaded for what was considered intentional by the courts, but unintentional by Sri Lanka and her family? Ryan Vesey 15:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do agree that the blurb I proposed is too long & some sections better be removed. I propose to amend it as follows. Rizana Nafeek of Sri Lanka was executed in Saudi Arabia on the grounds of homicide done at age of 17 years. Singhalawap (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Week Oppose posting amounts to a criticism of Saudi Arabia, not praise for the deceased's notable actions. I have suggested a better blurb. The article needs cleanunp for style, grammar and tenses. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Regular oppose. This is obviously terrible, tragic and whatever adjectives other editors would like to add. But I'm not seeing what makes it unexpected. Someone being executed for "unintentional homicide" would be something we could post, but that doesn't seem accurate AFAICT. Neither of the proposed blurbs is neutral, BTW. Formerip (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean mention of the protests is unbalanced? Could just drop that and go with "Sri-Lankan Rizana Nafeek is executed in Saudia Arabia for the death when she was 17 of an infant under her care." But without mentioning the protests readers will be clueless as to why this was posted. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think mentioning protests is fine (have they been "international", though?). My problem with your version is that is makes it seem as if she was convicted under some sort of negligence law. Formerip (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I support use of the alternative blurb proposed by User:Medeis. Singhalawap (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly convinced this has been in the news enough recently to merit inclusion. The BBC's article is from 11 AM this morning, but an ebb in the wildfires in Australia is currently bigger news on its Asia page (this doesn't even make its front page). It is not on NYT World at all. I might be convinced by the culmination of coverage over time. Obviously it's front page news for Amnesty International.--Chaser (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Right now the blurb says "international protest" referring to an appeal by the Sri Lankan government for clemency. I do see the issue with describing the execution being for the death of the infant. I am not familiar with consensus over her guilt. If we say was executed after being found guilty of murdering the infant in her care we are being strictly factual, but quite overlong for a blurb. I think a safe compromise is "Despite international protest, Sri-Lankan maid Rizana Nafeek, then 17, is executed in Saudia Arabia for killing an infant in her care." OH, I see I didn't upload the other altblurb, so I have moved this to the template. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with FormerIP. I can't see how we can be neutral and unbiased by posting this story, the emotive elements of which can be seen clearly at the start of this nomination. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Both blurbs fail to be neutral or accurate/precise, and attempt to force emotive language in order to demonstrate the notability of this story. The subject was convicted and executed under Saudi law. Posting this is akin to showcasing the execution of an American death row inmate, which we would never do (or at least ought not to).--WaltCip (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You may notice that I have opposed the nomination myself. It might help for you to suggest a more neutral blurb, because it may go up even despite our opposition. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
PS, an RD listing does away with the POV issues. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
ITN discussions are not headcounts, and a number of support !votes are of those essentially saying we have a moral obligation to post stories like this -- which we do not. We are not a news ticker, and we are certainly not the Human Rights Watch.--WaltCip (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, all I suggested was that you propose a better blurb if you have a problem with both the ones that have been proposed, which is what you said. I have done that plenty of times, updated articles or suggested better blurbs for nominations I have opposed or no supported. I hope peopl realize that we can do that, that we can work objectively to influence the project in a good way even if we oppose a certain decision? Indenting to lecture me about 'not a vote' is kind of way beyond the point. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaning support normally this has little impact, however the case seems so unusual that ITN might be appropriate. However, I personally don't understand what did the Saudis say, why did they behead her exactly? Why did they ignore international pleads? The article leaves lots of questions unanswered for such an unusual case. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Righteous indignation is not grounds for ITN inclusion. Repugnant as many might find capital punishment, or capital sentences for offences as a minor (in one's own jurisdiction), this is in accordance with Saudi law. So the story boils down to "Laws of Saudi Arabia applied in case that arises in Saudi Arabia". We certainly should not be presenting defence claims that were not upheld by the court as though they are irrefutable fact. A tragic story, but we not an Amnesty bulletin. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given by others; this is not the forum to publicize actions against human rights around the world. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens more often than not. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Agreed. This is very important news regarding human rights. -- බිඟුවා සාකච්ඡාව 02:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose. People are executed in the US (and other countries too) all the time. The blurb is rather confusing too. Mocctur (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be rather umfamiliar with the facts. Or perhaps you can name some 17-year-old girls (at the time of the crime of which they were convicted) who have been executed in the US? μηδείς (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per others. Besides, what is so important about a country following its laws?75.73.114.111 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly not an uncommon thing (280 Indonesian migrant workers on death row in the Middle East and Malaysia; Indonesian beheaded; several cases... and this is just Indonesian workers) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This person is notable only for their execution. Whilst a deplorable act, executions aren't that unusual, not even executions of other countries' citizens. As far as I can tell there has been little interest or reaction beyond Sri Lanka - whilst that isn't a reason to reject the item, it does point to a lack of significance. I'm also concerned about the apparent vote stacking (support votes without any real reason given) by editors who have otherwise never been involved in ITN. Modest Genius talk 23:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As said above, we are not an amnesty bulletin. Also, why are executions deplorable? Do we think that people like James Eagan Holmes should be allowed to live for 50 years in a jail cell off of taxpayers money? AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 00:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The UN General Assembly, every nation in Europe bar Belarus, most countries in the world... Kevin McE (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't asking who, I was asking why. AutomaticStrikeout (TC) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
We probably have an article you could read through setting out various views on the topic and why people hold them. Formerip (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree with AutomaticStrikeOut that the death penalty has its benefits, this is a clear case where it should not have been imposed or even considered. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeanne Manford for RD tickerEdit

Major civil rights campaigner and founder of PFLAG, death reported in Huffington Post, The Advocate. --Jayron32 01:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. You have noticed that she has no WP article, I presume? Formerip (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
She did: [70]. There's probably enough there to bring this back. --Jayron32 03:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I am tempted to oppose this, but if the article can be restored with a five sentence update on her importance and notability it might fly. The lack of sources beyond the Advocate and The Huffington Post may be a problem, though.μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose she had no article before she died (I'm aware of the merger discussed here) Hot Stop (Talk) 03:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD items should have a standalone article and based on the discussion Hot Stop mentioned, it seems as though Manford was not notable enough to merit a standalone article. SpencerT♦C 05:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have to object strongly to this pretended new "pre-existing standalone article" criterion. The interweb is hugely recentist. The fact that unemployed twenty-somethings in their momma's basements haven't made an article about something yet implies that the summum bonum of human knowledge is video games and soccer players. That being said, a five-sentence update is still not too much to ask for, is it? μηδείς (talk)
Barring extremely notable circumstances that lead to someones death, if someone's not notable enough for their own article while they're alive they're certainly not notable enough to be featured on the death ticker. There are about 600,000 living individuals with their own articles on Wikipedia right now; surely if she was truly notable enough an article would have existed before she died. Hot Stop (Talk) 06:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not a "new "pre-existing standalone article" criterion"; see Wikipedia:ITN/DC#Deaths which states that "the article as a whole must be B-class and/or be satisfactorily filled out with no major omissions of the person's life and effect." An article doesn't exist that even comes close to fulfilling these criteria and based on that judgement, I don't believe one can be made in time for possible posting. That said, I do understand your point about not having an article, but I disagree that a 5-sentence update to the PFLAG article (if I interpreted what you said correctly) would be worthy of posting to RD. SpencerT♦C 01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The central crux of ITN is to direct people from the front page to an article. This person is clearly not notable as an article would have been created. I condemn most strongly the uncivil and personal attacks from Medeis, another example of their disrespect and rudeness doktorb wordsdeeds 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 05:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attacks? What? Where?--WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Apparently citing recentism--see our article on wikipedia and its statistics [71]; that 90% of contributors are male, 75% under the age of 30, 70% single, 90% have no child--struck a nerve. I think opposing a blurb on a 92 year-old woman whose fame dates before 1990 because our readership hasn't gotten around to writing an article on it yet strengthens a pernicious bias. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was the tone of writing you used when citing recentism, for example referring people who opposed the nomination as "unemployed twenty-somethings in their momma's basements" was probably over the line. Again, it's not the truth behind the point you are trying to make, it's the specific word choice you use in making that point that makes the difference between a neutral observation and a rude insult. Even more troubling is the obtuse way you seem to refuse to recognize the difference when confronted with this. --Jayron32 21:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
That's entirely false, Jayron. I did not describe the people opposing this nomination as unemployed, etc. Please reread what I said. I am also certainly not following any anti-American editors from thread to thread talking false offense at what they have said or I can imagine they might say. μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Regardless, you described somebody as such, which is rude enough. --Jayron32 05:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a really disappointing "Oh, yeah...well!"-type response, especially from you, Jayron, as an admin and one of the better thinkers here. Please just look at who's following whom from thread to thread here with their attacks and if you won't act at least don't tell me I deserve false blame anyway. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8Edit


M23 Rebels announce cease-fireEdit

Article: M23 rebellion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the March 23 Movement announce a unilateral cease-fire ahead of peace talks with the government.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A development in a significant conflict that's probably under-reported. --LukeSurl t c 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Wait - It would be big news if the two sides actually agreed to a ceasefire. --00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Support IF we post th emore currently noable CAR rebellion in the news. As notable as Mali and GB's qcoupLihaas (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
    • That is a completely different item. There was consensus when that was nominated to wait until a peace deal was agreed upon or if the rebels took over Bangui. SpencerT♦C 01:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

January 7Edit


2013 BCS National Championship gameEdit

Withdrawing nomination, see more detailed rationale below. SpencerT♦C 00:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: I know this is perennially nominated, and it has not passed the past four years that it has been nominated but there has not been consensus to post before (this does not mean there has been consensus not to post). Although there is a good chance that this nomination will not have consensus to post, I firmly believe that consensus can change, so I nominate this for the following reasons:
  • The first American football game ever played was between two college teams, so college football has a history, legacy and cultural effect that are longer than that of the NFL and professional football [72]
  • The college American football industry is a multibillion dollar industry, and the BCS national championship is the most-expensive "gemstone" of this industry [73]
  • In terms of the local economic impact (excluding TV and other consumption related to the national championship outside of where the game is being played, it is estimated at $400 million. [74]
  • One of Notre Dame's regular season games (vs. Navy) was played in another country [75]
  • Alamaba and Notre Dame have international football players from other countries, including Australia (Jesse Williams (American football) and Cameroon (Cyrus Kouandjio), as well of players of direct international ancestry such as Samoa and Cuba [76].
  • It has been projected that this national championship game will be the most-watched game in the history of college football, and the game is being broadcast on television internationally [77] and [78].
  • The BCS national championship trophy is made by an Irish artist and is made of Waterford Crystal, which is distinctly Irish. [79]
  • This is receiving press coverage internationally: Australia, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and others --SpencerT♦C 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose College games are not the highest level this sport is played at, and that's that. Rugby originated at Rugby School, but we don't post secondary school Rugby games. Things like the craftsmanship of the trophy are of vanishing insignificance to the notability of the tournament. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Age/experience-limited, therefore not the top level of the sport. Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Spencer's excellent nomination. Unfortunately this college sports issue is perennially debated here with no pathway to a consensus. I certainly understand that users outside of North America find US college sports befuddling. I think one of the best arguments that can be made is that for all the flaws of college sports, there is a parochial passion to its fans that is similar to the find of passion you find in European soccer and which you don't generally find in professional sports in the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the top level of the sport. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose We don't post university level sports results however important they may be in the local market. Mtking 23:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Not every time, but I found an instance of where we did. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support Johnsemlak is right that these college programs bring on some of the most incredible fan devotion you can witness (the sheer unwillingness of Penn State fans to see the fault in Paterno's behavior being a chief example). Just travel in the southern US and talk to locals about the nearby college football programs. And kudos to Spencer for a well thought out and clear nomination. I was going to oppose, but then I noticed that the 2010 and 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournaments were posted after the championship game, and college basketball is closely analogous to college football. The 2012 tournament wasn't posted, though, which shows there is no 100% consensus on how to treat college sports in the US. I'm leaning support based on Spencer, Johnsemlak, and the 2010 & 2011 NCAA basketball championships. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Strong oppose any and all university-level sport items. We have this discussion several times per year, and every time it gets shot down. I've explained my opposition to such items many times, so won't bother to repeat it all. This is a non-professional game, open to university teams only, and isn't even the final of a competition - the participants are chosen via some opaque and arbitrary 'ranking'. Yes, consensus can change, but can we please stop nominating these on the off chance that buying enough lottery tickets will result in one instance where ITN/C wasn't paying attention? Modest Genius talk 23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A nicely done nomination, but I'm afraid for me the fairly standard objections as discussed above outweigh the rationale in favour. LukeSurl t c 23:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not relevant, US-centric. Mocctur (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Withdrawing the nomination as nominator. This obviously won't be posted, so there's no need to waste more time on this. I guess my whole point of the nomination was to point out the major economic effect of the game (as opposed to the same rehashed arguments about college football not being the top level of the sport), but I think it's clear that simply considering money isn't a good way to gauge the notability of a sports championship. SpencerT♦C 00:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Lionel Messi wins FIFA Ballon d'OrEdit

Articles: 2012 FIFA Ballon d'Or (talk, history) and Lionel Messi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Lionel Messi wins the 2012 FIFA Ballon d'Or.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: As FIFA are the governing body of world association football, this is the most authoritative selection as to the best player in the world (the award used to be called "FIFA World Player of the Year" before it merged with a French award). While there are several soccer ITN/R items, these all relate to clubs or nations. This is the most definative award regarding individual achievement in the world's most popular sport. --LukeSurl t c 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Support per nomi comments, but expect "local news" and "minor award" opposes to come streaming in soon.--85.210.109.66 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Admins, where are you? Are preemptive insults the proper form of IP response on this board? μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OpposeStrongest possible oppose with every fiber of my being recurring event, not on ITN/R, with no indication that this was unexpected or significant. The award only has a WP article for 2012, 2011 and 2010. The 2010 article is marked as "Low-Importanace" for wikiproject:football. Yes Messi kicked a ball into the net lots of times, but so what? He won the award in 2011 and 2010 as well. We could just as easily nominate Heisman trophy winners, MBA MVP, and whatever the NHL version of it is, to name just a few. --IP98 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It's a popularity contest for crying out loud. Selected by a secret vote from coaches, captains and "sports writers". LOL! Someone please put a bullet in this thing. --IP98 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
That's how most of these "best player" awards are chosen, aren't they? By people knowledgeable in the sport? 331dot (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but no one is promoting the Heisman Trophy or the Hart Trophy. This is being paraded around as "the top award from the top body of the most popular sport in the world" but it's not FIFA making the selection at all, it's a sampling of sports writers, coaches and captains. --IP98 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
But don't they do that on behalf of FIFA? If it's just a bunch of coaches and writers getting together on their own and saying someone is the best player, then you would have a point there. But isn't this FIFA asking these people to select someone? 331dot (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't make it any less of a popularity contest, or give it any more exceptional value. This isn't being awarded by the "top governing body" of the sport, but rather a secret cabal of writers, coaches and players. It's FIFA branded, but that's all. --IP98 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Any award like that is a "popularity contest". It might be a "secret cabal" but it is still one selected by FIFA and since it's their award they can decide how it is awarded. That is certainly different than people doing it on their own. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It is by no possible definition of the phrase a secret cabal: being captain or coach of a national team is by no means covert. Votes are published so nothing secretive about it at all. Kevin McE (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)