*'''Ready Again?''' Well, were back to at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2013_North_Korean_nuclear_test&diff=537839300&oldid=537839202 edit]. It looks ready, but any admin posting this should check to make sure it's not reverted to list form in the reaction section or otherwise compromised. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Ready Again?''' Well, were back to at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2013_North_Korean_nuclear_test&diff=537839300&oldid=537839202 edit]. It looks ready, but any admin posting this should check to make sure it's not reverted to list form in the reaction section or otherwise compromised. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 09:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 09:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''': Article looks fleshed out, no question on notability. [[User:Chocolate Horlicks|Chocolate Horlicks]] ([[User talk:Chocolate Horlicks|talk]]) 11:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Nominator's comments: Little to no earthquake history in this region; probable North Korean nuclear weapons test. Details still sketchy, so will need to wait til information becomes clearer. --Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more information. It most likely is one, as the area the seismic activity was detected has no history of natural earthquakes, but we should wait for an official statement from North Korea or confirmation by other governments. 331dot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Expansion for some bizarre reason this article keeps being reverted from full paragraph to list form. So until it is expanded it fails the three full paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Again? Well, were back to at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each with this edit. It looks ready, but any admin posting this should check to make sure it's not reverted to list form in the reaction section or otherwise compromised. μηδείς (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insurgents launch an attack on the strategic city of Gao, capturing a police station and sparking a day-long firefight that included Malian troops, as well as French attack helicopters. (Al Jazeera)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Once the articles are updated with the winner of this award, should be posted per ITN/R. --User:Simfan34
Support Papal resignations are rare, indeed. Canuck89 (talk to me) 11:20, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Question - This should obviously be posted, however the question is when should it be posted. After the article is ready or when the Pope actually resigns? YuMaNuMaContrib11:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With breaking news like this, the announcement of resignation is often enough big news and posted as it is announced. This recently happened with abdication announcement of the Dutch queen. Whether this should be posted again after the abdication really takes effect can be discussed then. --hydrox (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we list only "events" instead of "announcements"? Which means wait until 28 February, i.e. the day when he steps down. --bender235 (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true with most other similar announcements; but this is such a rare event (last time was 1415) that the announcement is notable in this case. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb, but I would go with "resign", rather than "abdicate". Wikinews, the BBC, the Guardian and Reuters (see the sources of the Wikinews page) have all gone with "resign". It Is Me Heret / c11:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would go with "the papacy", rather than "the papal throne". Canuck89 (talk to me) 11:40, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
Support now or later pending update but not both. New pope is ITN/R and will post per normal. For something like this though, we need a proper minimum update. Should be no problem to find WP:RS to build it out. --IP98 (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obviously world-wise importance. To complicate the abdicate/resign issue a bit further, the official text of the announcement states that the Pope intends to "... renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome...", therefore I suggest blurb changed to PopeBenedict XVI declares he is to renounce his ministry at the end of the month, the first to do so since Pope Gregory XII in 1415. An optimist on the run! 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia has Papal resignation listed under the article for abdication. Surely if you relinquish the rights to a throne you abdicate, Edward VIII didn't resign he abdicated. I think using the word resign undermines the whole thing, anybody can resign, only a few people can abdicate --Andrew12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It also mentions "abdicating the Papacy" which, as opposed to resignation, doesn't make it sound like he worked at Walmart --Andrew12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The word abdicate should be definitely used. The pope is elected for life, it's not an office one just resigns from. Resign is just a kind euphemism. Inglok (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that because numerous media sources are promoting shoddy journalism that that's any reason for us to follow suit. A termination of the papal throne, a position for life, is an abdication. --Andrew14:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But even that article talks about both "papal abdication" and "papal resignation". From the evidence we have seen here so far, it strikes me that most sources use "resign"/"resignation", a minority of sources use both "resignation" and "abdication", but I have not seen you offer any sources which support your viewpoint, which is that "resignation" is not an acceptable term. It Is Me Heret / c15:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But the accepted term is "resign". And he doesn't occupy a "throne". Y'all are confusing someone who looks like a secular monarch for... a monarch. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCNN has an opinion saying that "resign" is the correct term because that's the term used in a translation of the Canon Law. I checked the authoritative Latin source and it uses the phrase "muneri| suo renuntiet", 'reject his office'. So not only are they right that "abdicate" is used in the modern times mostly of monarchs (which The Pope is not) and that the original source seems to use a term that is maybe best translated as "resign", most sources are also using "resign" as pointed out above. --hydrox (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Minister of TunisiaHamadi Jebali says he will resign if a new "technocratic" government cannot be formed in a few days. Amid protests one policeman dies and tens of protesters are injured. (BBC)(Tunisia Live)
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Record of the Year is not the most important Grammy Award. I see no reason to exclude the other two main categories (or at least the Album one), just check the last years:
The main blurb is also factually wrong. Adele didn't win Record or Album of the year. She did that LAST year. I don't know why we're posting results from the 54th Grammys. This was the 55th. Unlike last year, there just wasn't any dominating winner that took home any chunk of the major categories, or indeed won lots of awards. All of the awards were spread out pretty well. Mumford & Sons won Album of the Year for Babel, Gotye feat. Kimbra won Record of the Year for "Somebody That I Used to Know", while fun. won Song of the Year for "We Are Young". The only act that took home more than one of the "Four Majors" was fun., who also took home Best New Artist. So, I'd go with the alt blurb, if anything. --Jayron3216:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb since its a year out of date. I think we typically post Record of the Year (Gotye & Kimbra) and Album of the Year (Mumford & Sons). No need to mention fun., since they didn't win one of those two. Teemu08 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wake Up people! I am not exactly sure what the rules are for updates when a blurb has three bold targets, but I would assume each needs five lines of prose. And 24 hours after the awards that is not the case for Gotye or Mumford and Sons. Whoever nominated this, and whoever cares, needs to follow up. If we can't find four sentences of comments on each of these wiiners then maybe we should change the blurb to "They held the Grammys and nobody cared." μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Weak oppose. Breaking news: farts sniffed. My own concerns about the academy's insular nature aside, I don't like the fact that we routinely go for this one and the Oscars, when one is undisputedly the top of its field and one is simply another regional event at the same level of prestige as the Césars or Bodils (which we never consider; though I suspect less for their regional nature and more for their not-being-in-English). GRAPPLEX22:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR once the awards are given out and article is updated. If this shouldn't be an ITNR event, that can be discussed on that page. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability as an awards show that the international film industry does care about. Article however needs some substantial prose. The only section currently in sentences, the lead, is basically a un-bulleted list. --LukeSurltc23:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Consensus at ITN/R never established by discussion, and so invalid. One of many second level national awards, linguistic systemic bias to include this over others. Wait until the Oscars. Kevin McE (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little more sympathetic to your position here, as it seems that this has not been on ITNR here nearly as long as the soccer tournament below has been on it; but I still feel that it would be better if you solicited consensus to remove it. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Withholding support until I have some prose about the match to support. Need something to judge, and there's nothing about the actual match itself as of my writing this. --Jayron3220:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as you know, an invalid oppose, since it's ITN/R. Your only valid opposition would be (a) to remove it from ITN/R or (b) continually object to the quality of the update. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing invalid about it at all: ITN/R listing has been overturned on importance grounds here before. ITN/R is not set in stone, and its assumption that something is to be considered important enough to post every time it happens is open to challenge, especially as it was posted there with no demonstrable consensus. Note that even the template says "generally considered important enough": no absolutes, no prohibitions. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did exactly what you suggested below, got reverted twice. So, do people actually want to argue why a tournament that only 1 of the top 20 teams in the world were eligible for should be regarded as important, or are they just going to hide behind a declaration that has no evidence of any consensus at all? Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Support as ITN/R, but as usual suggest blurb be changed to "Nigeria defeats Burkina Faso..." "... concludes with Nigeria defeating Burkina Faso 1-0..." to avoid the usual ENGVAR issues. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that also introduce an ENGVAR issue (defeat vs defeats). I believe "X concludes with Y defeating Z" is the neutral wording, isn't it? I don't pay attention as much as I probably should. GRAPPLEX21:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, who really cares? Post it however the US want, it won't be a big deal to the BritEng readers, the current blurb is fine, or add an "s", just please, please don't spend hours debating it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Finalists ranked 52nd and 92nd in the world, only 1 team from world top 20 in the tournament, and none higher than 14th: nowhere near the top competitive level of the sport. ITN/R addition made with no discussion, so cannot claim weight of consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid oppose since it's ITN/R. Seek its removal from there. Or prove the update inadequate. (Please note: don't shoot the messenger. Sorry about that. Or remove it from ITN/R in the same manner it was added?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's immature to oppose something because the finalists are low-ranked national teams. There is no difference between a higher or a lower-ranked team winning the same crown. Last year we posted 80-something ranked Zambia winning the championship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's irresponsible to claim it is top level if only 1 of the top 20 teams are permitted to be in the tournament. Please present your reason for saying it is important. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is geographically restricted, as it's the African Cup in question and only national teams from this continent are eligible to enter the tournament, so it's pretty lame to say that only one out of 20 is permitted to play on the tournament. Moreover, the FIFA ranking is completely based on mathematical calculations and is viewed with lower regard in the last years. More importantly, FIFA as a governing body of football invests and allocate too much resources in the development of football in Africa. As for the importance of the news, it tops as one of the main sport stories at most of the media portals.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My argument isn't geographically restricted, the tournament is. Restriction reduces notability. Just as the European Aussie rules championship is geographically restricted, and thus does not have teams of a high enough standard to claim that that event is notable here. Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think one can be confident that the Copa América will include a reasonable proportion of the highest ranked teams in the world for the foreseeable future. I would indeed support the removal of other geographically restricted tournaments, including the AFC Asian Cup and the CONCACAF Gold Cup, which similarly have none of the top ten teams in the world, and few of the top 20 or 30. Would you favour the inclusion of the OFC championship at ITN/R, which is the logical consequence of your position? Kevin McE (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conclusion of a continental championship in football is notable enough for inclusion. Note that we always follow a precedence in posting these events and the fact that football is given more importance compared to any other sport.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not included in ITN/R, but posted on the main page. You've apparently misunderstood my point. Please check that we posted the conclusion of the same championship several times before, and we did the same with the conclusion of EURO and the Asian Cup.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has not always been posted, neither has the Asian or Oceanian championships. Simply being a continental championship is insufficient. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR. Other continental soccer championships are listed there as well; we should list all of them or none of them as a matter of fairness. If it shouldn't be there, it should be discussed in terms of removing it from ITNR. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairness is certainly an issue; one continent should not be treated different than another just because of our judgement that one tournament is less notable than another. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you appreciated it. I thought notability was related to level of play. Why is one continental tournament the "top level" and not another? 331dot (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of a nation in these tournaments is not based on skill, but geography. If nations were assigned to continental tournaments based on skill, you would have a point. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you do not believe that notability is related to level of play? This is simply biggest fish in small (in footballing terms) geographically defined pool. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that if we are going to post one continental-level tournament, we should post them all and not make judgement calls about them. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if the Top 20 teams start coming out of the African tournament and not Europe, you will call for removing the Europe tournament and adding the African one? 331dot (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not accuse you of personal bias; my point is that it would be better to be consistent instead of constantly reviewing which tournaments are "important" and which aren't, because it can change; or, they should all be removed and just the World Cup should be there. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability - I'm surprised this is necessary. It's a continental championship. While maybe the OFC Championship could be argued to be a bit trivial, Africa is a big football-obsessed continent of a billion people. This championship was a big deal in Africa, and indeed elsewhere in the world too. LukeSurltc21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That it was Nigeria vs. Bukina Faso in the final, rather than the higher-ranked teams that fell in earlier rounds was an upset, yes. This doesn't make it not the premier championship of African football. It's hugely in the news for a billion people, and we're developing a nice article to go with it. If we have a decent article, and we make a special exemption to our rules not to post a story because it relates to Africa, that is damning for us as a community. Think about it. LukeSurltc22:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But no very high ranked teams were knocked out in the earlier rounds. Cote d'Ivoire (14th in FIFA rankings) were highest rated, and are not world leaders in the sport. I resent the implication that my opposition is because it is Africa: it is because it is second rate football. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we have a link at ITNR showing where this was ever discussed and consensus achieved to add the item to that list. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, they probably should. ITN/R, if it should exist at all, should only be for items over which we can be absolutely confident that importance would find consensus every time. Very little argument for importance of this event, and many others at ITN/R, has ever been put forward. (You're not really suggesting that Olympic football is ITNworthy, are you?) Kevin McE (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose is has nothing to do with the notability of the Cup of Nations. Why should we omit an item for the thousands of people who read the main page until a procedural and technical dispute is resolved to some user's satisfaction on a page 99.99% of readers will not see? --LukeSurltc22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not suggesting that it be prohibited, just saying that it should not be waved through without importance being agreed. Does anyone object to the principle that importance should actually be discussed and determined by consensus? This has never been determined. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This vote should not be counted at all since it deals with something not related to the nomination. The last bullet in the tutorial on the top of this page reads "Do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." We really don't need votes that point out to issues that should be resolved elsewhere. Please try to find another reason to oppose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the only tournament ranked above this in terms of African football is the World Cup and you know that; please explain why you're badgering editors so relentlessly about this item. GRAPPLEX22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why is African football necessarily to be shown at ITN? The standard is demonstrably not particularly high. Must we show the Oceania championships (highest eligible team 91st in the world, just behind the 40th European country), because "the only tournament ranked above this in terms of [Oceanian] football is the World Cup"? Kevin McE (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No item is "necessary" and I never claimed as much. I support this item, not demand its posting, because I feel a tournament ranked just below possibly the largest sporting event there is seems quite notable to me, and yes that does mean I would show the same support for an Oceanian equivalent thank you. And as has been pointed out to you, it doesn't matter half a damn what team is ranked where, the event is still just as notable regardless. GRAPPLEX23:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not just about the quality of the teams involved in a tournament. It's also about the amount of news coverage. This tournament receives extensive coverage in the international media. Not only is it very big in Africa, there's widespread interest elsewhere. Plus, of course, it's ITN/R (the inappropriate removal without discussion having been reverted), so arguments against its significance are irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article needs a prose update detailing the final match, so I'm removing the ready tag. However, the rest of the article is in good shape. SpencerT♦C23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This event gets a fair bit of global coverage, on the BBC, Al Jazeera, Russia Today. It is the top sporting event on continent of Africa. It features globally known sportsmen. I am also highly confused as to how this was taken off of ITNR at this moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE. Since no one noticed my note above, this should go up when and if the prose update is sufficient. Prior practice has been to have a prose summary of the game itself. There's a huge amount of graphics in the middle of the article, then the first prose about the gameplay is "Despite the narrow margin of victory, Nigeria's win was considered a comfortable one, and the outsiders Burkina Faso were described as looking tired." In other words, the earliest text about the game is about the end of the game, and there's still no overall game summary. In all of the debate above and on the ITN talk page where people have tried to one-up each other as to who is more elitist, no one has bothered to actually make sure there's an article worth putting up on the main page from a textual point of view. I'm going to bold this because it is vital for everyone here to read: We need to spend less time worrying about the importance of an event, and more time worrying about the quality of the text of the Wikipedia article. Even if this gets shot down and never makes the main page, the pride in having helped make a really good article should be its own reward. Instead we have this same old tired debate over who's entirely personal opinion of what's important enough for the main page taking up hours of debate. If just one person who claimed, above, to care about Wikipedia's coverage of non-European soccer actually spent the same amount of time fixing up the article rather than debating with people over opinions they have no intention of changing, we'd have an FA quality article about this event. Jayron32 out. <drop mic> <storm off stage>. --Jayron3202:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron the game summary seems fine. It refers to events in both halves and is referenced. I don't see the problem. I believe it's ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we should seek to improve all articles, even FAs. The question here is whether the article nominated has a sufficient update at this time and I believe it has.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I thought there was an ITNR discussion that concluded that any reasoning predicated on "top level of the sport" is invalid (or something like that)? –HTD03:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is there was a discussion earlier to end the policy of giving ITNR status automatically to the top competition of every 'major sport', and it was in fact agreed to end this rule. After which, Hurling was in fact removed from ITNR. I don't remember it every being ruled that the argument itself is invalid, just that it didn't mean automatic inclusion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added a little more to match summary. Think the article has enough content, see no copyvio problems, and is definitely a notable event - probably Africa's biggest sporting event this year. - Shuddetalk09:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Updated Comment: This year's Kumbh Mela, had been notable, for the unprecedented figures of humanity attending the event and the "Holy Sunday Dip" respectively, in human history ever. Editors please help in making the article look good and up-to wiki standards.Regards, theTigerKing09:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sheer number of people at the Kumbh Mela means that it may well have been postable even without this tragedy. Article is however quite fragment at the current time and does not mention the stampede. There does exist an article for the 1954 Kumbh Mela stampede which may be an applicable template. LukeSurltc21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know what? I'd create the article in the mainspace, rather than go through the articles for review process. I think AfR will be too slow for our purposes here, and having in it the mainspace will mean community editing is more likely to occur. LukeSurltc21:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Significant but I'm witholding support until the article quality improves. The referencing is atrocious and the article needs fixing before we can put this on the main page. --Jayron3218:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any news with reactions/tributes? The AP story is basically an obituary, there's nothing I can see with which to expand the death section of the article. LukeSurltc23:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Updated Although this article has been expanded by over 1,000 bytes on the death and in references that were previously missing [3] it is most certainly not updated by five sentences of prose in the death section or elsewhere. It looks like another otherwise-supportable death nom that will die on the vine of neglect without further work. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed the ready tag, as the article still has an orange level tag that needs to be resolved. The overall level of referencing of the article is WELL below what should be minimally acceptable for main page. --Jayron3219:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one section totally lacked references, I have hidden-commented it out and added a note to the talk page. There are no citation needed tags in the rest of the article--and the update is well referenced. So I have removed the page level tag, and am going to remove the unready notice Jayron placed. If specific claims need tagging that should be done per item at the article. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I want this topic posted to RD as much as the next person, moreso even, but this is not the sort of article I would want on the main page. There's very spotty referencing, it isn't one section, it's a complete mess. There's very little in the way of decent references for much of the text of the article. Information about his wife (Hello, BLP) is almost entirely unreferenced, statements regarding supposed records he held and results of his matches is unreferenced. An occasional citation needed tag is one thing, but this article should NOT go on the main page in the state it is in. Again, this person's death should be on the main page RD section. This article is a piece of shit not worthy of recognition on the main page. We need to separate the difference between people notable enough for the main page and articles which would embarrass Wikipedia if they made the main page. If you want, I can tag every problematic statement with a [citation needed] tag. Experienced editors who are here should recognize them, but I guess I can't assume anything. --Jayron3221:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice tone. Maybe fix things you have issues with rather than emote all over ITN? Your enthusiasm is commendable but claiming an article to be a "piece of shit" without actually doing anything about it is properly lame. Perhaps take a break, it's clearly getting to you. By all means go over every article featured on the main page today and tag them with {{cn}}'s, that's very helpful. Isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not use strawman arguments, since I've never claimed that every single item on the main page needs every single statement referenced. Regarding my tone: When I didn't use obscenities, people felt didn't think this article had any major problems. I should not have used the word shit. However, if my using a word like shit makes you believe that the article is a decent article, I am not sure what to say about that. The article doesn't magically become decent because I said "shit". Look, I would like to fix the issues. I don't read chinese or have access to the information. Presumably, someone else does. That doesn't mean I will accept unreferenced, potentially BLP-violating information to go on the main page. Also, I don't oppose articles with one or two cn tags; that's not the issue here. The issue is that THIS article is not of a standard worthy of the main page. The bulk of the text is unreferenced, has been marked with CN tags, notes have been made on the article talk page which itemizes exactly what references are needed and why. I don't know what else to do. --Jayron3221:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite why this is the only article on or destined for the main page you feel needs to be tagged throughout in such a manner is curious. But as you said, until you started using the "shit" word, most of us were content to forgo your perceived shortcomings of the article for timeliness. Best bet seems to be to delete all the contentious material with which you've taken umbrage, and leave a semi-stub that can still meet quality requirements and also the "in the news" (i.e. it's still in the news) criteria. Looks like we've missed that though. Hay ho, back to Wikinews, eh?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, as I stated before to you, this isn't about me. If you feel I have behaved in a way that deserves sanction, WP:ANI is available for you to use. None of that makes the article decent enough for the main page. --Jayron3221:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Medeis. I've noticed the work you have been doing, and it's fantastic. Thank you for taking the time to see this through. --Jayron3223:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support Medeis deserves a lot of credit for putting in a Yeoman's effort in bringing this up to snuff. Certainly more credit than I do for merely sitting back and taking shots at it. Well done. --Jayron3205:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And while basking in the glow of that praise let me point out that regardless of my opinion of those nominations, Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Allahabad Stampede need minimal work to get them postready, but the people who've nominated (and supported) them have done about diddly to make them compliant. This isn't rocket science, amigos. A google search, four more referenced sentences, and you are there. μηδείς (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not go as far as making demands of people, everyone has different skills, and if something gets nominated, others are allowed to pitch in where they have the skills. However, I won't stand for being badgered merely because I noted problems with the article. Yeah, I went a bit over the line with my tone above, and I shouldn't have done that, but when someone raises issues with the article, either fix it or be silent on it; shooting the messenger for the message is rarely helpful. --Jayron3206:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi makes an official statement, extending an invitation to the opposition for dialogue aimed at achieving a political solution to the conflict. (Al Jazeera)
Five people are killed when a small airplaneCessna crashes on the side of the runway at Brussels South Charleroi Airport in Belgium after suffering difficulties on take-off. The incident forced the airport to shut down for six hours, before resuming services. (Reuters)(BBC)
Former Canadian navy intelligence officer Jeffrey Delisle is jailed for 20 years after pleading guilty to selling classified NATO information to Russia. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Major earthquake effecting three major South American countries. Being reported worldwide with speculation on the Carnival festivities occurring at the same time. --User:Ravivyas16 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an earthquake happening on Earth? That's not extraordinary enough. Plus this has a blatant systemic bias towards people on Earth. Think of all the non-Earthlings who could care less. Hot Stop(Talk)03:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank goodness, but the earthquake caused no deaths, earthquakes are also quite common around the world I dont see how this one differs or stands out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The earthquake had no fatalities, not even major damage. Although 7.0-magnitude is somewhat strong, it just isnt significant enough to be an ITN blurb. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Major winter storm having wide and significant effects, both in the US and Canada, with high snowfall totals and large number of power outages. Being covered internationally. Open to suggestions on the blurb. --331dot (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objections about an event being in one country (in this case, two)are invalid; over 600,000 power outages, thousands of flights cancelled affecting tens of thousands of people, roads clogged with cars, record snowfall, states of emergency declared, driving bans; these things are not "unclear repercussions". 331dot (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When similar disasters happen in China with more than million people being affected, it's usually opposed by the fact it represents only a small portion of the total population. I would rather use the same rationale here. The figures you mention as relevant are simply niche compared to the total population in the affected region.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support listing such disasters in China; even if I didn't, this storm has shut down a good chunk of the US and is affecting tens of millions, not just a small part of the population. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the highest ever snow cover is something that was adduced in most of the news covering the storm. But still we need to wait for a while and then agree on the severity of the hit. It's surely induced some damages so far, but it might not end here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wait per Medeis. We've posted other extreme weather events: heat waves in russia, snow storms in europe, tornado outbreaks, etc. 311dot raises several good points, but we should wait until the storm passes. --IP98 (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support storm has moved away from heavily populated areas, and the impacts are clear enough. The article is in much better condition already than many posted routinely. With 40 million people impacted by the storm, it is quite newsworthy. JehochmanTalk15:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article reports five car crashes and one heart attack attributed to the storm (by the way it's been named Nemo and the blurb should de changed). The snowfall was heavy, but NE has had three storms like this out of the last four years--it's an expected event. I don't think we reported the recent 6 foot snowfall in Moscow. I am open to changing if there's more news. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb should not mention "Nemo", as that is a name applied by The Weather Channel for its own purposes and not an impartial government agency(as hurricane names are); the National Weather Center has specifically said they will not use it, as have some news outlets. This isn't just "heavy" snow, it is record setting snowfall upwards of two and a half feet. I live in the Northeast US and we do not "expect" these types of storms. They are rare occurrences; the last one of this scale was in 1978. I assume you are lumping in the recent hurricanes, but those are entirely different events. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of a 6 foot snowfall in Moscow; I would have supported that as well. As IP98 stated, we have posted other extreme weather events, such as heat waves and tornadoes. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, had glanced at the Nemo story, assumed it was government-assigned. I live in NY, my family north of Boston--they are out sledding. I am frankly disappointed when we don't get a storm like this at least once a year. In any case the impact seems mostly to have been political gaffes and a fascist overreaction by certain executives waving their orders around. Car accidents and heart attacks in 80 year-olds happen even when it doesn't snow. To see a nor'easter I could support, compare the John Lindsay Storm with dozens of deaths in NYC alone. (here's a link to the "Russian Snow-nami"--turns out Moscow only got ten inches while others got 10 feet.) μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I got more than a foot of snow outside my house but i really dont think thats worth posting on ITN... Its a winter storm in winter. -- Ashish-g5519:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you got just a foot, but millions of people got twice, and in some cases, three times that, breaking all-time snowfall records- along with millions who had no power. This isn't some one-off mildly heavy snowfall for a few people or everyone, it has wide-reaching effects and is going to take a long time to deal with. Is the only ticket onto ITN to have large numbers of casualties? I agree that's important, but that leaves out many notable things- and if that's the case, it should be listed as a criteria on this page. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have to remember those all-time snow records are for specific towns. Weather records are set every year for the highest or lowest temperature or greatest rainfall or whatever in Poughkeepsie or Piscataway. This is nowhere near the biggest storm ever. I'd concentrate on getting more sourced notable facts into the article, if it turns out 100 disappeared from a hotel on the Maine coast or something else Steven Kingish or Katrina-like this will get support. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that the fact that Portland, Maine smashed their snowfall record(among other places) is notable for ITN, but it is representative of the fact that snowfalls of this scale are rare events; I thought that's what went up on ITN. I guess I just feel that something that affects tens of millions of people, something which caused two state governors to ban any and all road traffic from their highways, etc., is notable; people like to read about events other than those that have large numbers of casualties or deaths. I'm going to back away for a bit now- this will either get posted, or not. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with it is that its just a winter storm in winter. Nothing significant but snow came out of this. Most major cities get more than this almost every year. I dont think any records were broken for major cities including Toronto, New york, Chicago etc. -- Ashish-g5521:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportOppose A standard weather phenomenon is not encyclopedic news. --hydrox (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC) ed Seems like it's somewhat unusual weather in this region after all. However, the amount of disturbance to lives of tens of millions of anglophones kinda makes it notable enough for en-wiki.. --hydrox (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three feet of snow over a significant area is not "standard" by any definition I'm aware of. OK, I'm really going away now. :) 331dot (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know how much is that in scientific units, but news sources are talking about a meter. A meter of snow is not a dramatic winter weather, though you seem to be correct that it's somewhat unusual in this particular region (NYT says about once every 10 years). Google for record U.S. snowfalls makes 1 meter (39 inhc) seem nothing unusual. --hydrox (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps where you live 3 feet is not rare. But in the United States, more specifically New England, there have only been a handful of snowstorms to produce that much snow, especially in a 24 hour period. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose still stands, maybe it's an aspect of having grown up with insane amounts of snow. I won't be upset if this ends up being posted, as it is undoubtedly "in the news", but it might be the most overhyped storm ever. RyanVesey01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really that thick-headed? Many locations in Connecticut picked up over 3 feet of snow! Boston received a storm surge of 4.2' feet (4th highest ever observed) and a snowfall total of 24.9" (5th highest ever observed). Portland, ME broke it's all-time snowfall record with 31.9" and a countless number of other cities across the region experienced their top 5 snowfall. Over half a million people were left, and are still left, without power, and thousands upon thousands of airline flights were cancelled. Several states were basically shut down for the duration of this system. NOTHING about this storm, NOT ONE ASPECT, was overhyped. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)01:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was probably unnecessary, I struck it out if that makes it any better, lol. But in all seriousness, nothing about this storm was overhyped and to say so is completely off-base. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)01:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As a Massachusetts resident (who luckily happens to be in Maryland while all that snow fell), I can say from experience that this is nothing new. We get at least 1-2 industrial-strength snowstorms every year, amongst the 3-5 normal snowstorms we get on average. Sometimes even in October. This is a classic example of the media needing some kind of major story to run in order to get people to watch. Way overhyped. Those from the New England area will know that snowstorms like this are nothing new. Now if 4+ feet of snow had fallen, that's different, but we annually get a big snowstorm that drops down a foot or so of snow every year. It's to be expected. Changing to Support, as we have posted lesser storms in the past, like this one. I still don't think it has caused enough impact, but the line of what is ITN-worthy for snowstorms in general is entirely left up to interpretation, and my opinion may be biased due to the fact that I've lived through lots of big snowstorms like these. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That supposedly "lesser" snowstorm resulted in 39 fatalities. I would support that being posted, but not this in the absence of a significantly higher death toll. Neljack (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support w/ Comments - Are you guys being serious right now? The storm has plunged hundreds of thousands into cold and darkness, caused innumerable traffic accidents, cost state and local governments millions, stranded hundreds or thousands of drivers, destroyed what will probably be hundreds of millions of dollars in property, forced the evacuation or rescue of scores of residents, led to the cancellation of thousands of airline flights, caused uncountable millions in lost business revenues, pretty much brought most of the Northeast to a standstill even while parts of that region still struggle to cope with the aftermath of Sandy, who butchered the area just over three months ago, produced some of the largest observed storm surge values in history in many cities across the Northeast (most notably Boston at 4.21'), and dumped some of the highest snowfall totals ever recorded across many major cities, and you guys are worried about it not having a high enough fatality number? Completely absurd! TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)22:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowstorms happen in the Winter. New England residents expect it and are well prepared for it. Sometimes power is lost if the storm is really bad, but overall life carries on. I grew up watching as historic snowfalls occur, and the impact is relatively minor compared to the likes of Sandy (which did not affect these areas as much as it did in the Mid-Atlantic states). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and hurricanes happen in the Summer. That does not mean they're not newsworthy. This system will go down as one of the worst in recorded history for many, many cities across New England, despite whether or not residents were prepared and regardless of how much impact you personally experienced. TropicalAnalystwx13(talk)22:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can post reliable sources that say the worst in recorded history, and where; the storm is by no means the worst; and we would not post a hurricane that caused a heart attack and half-a-dozen car accidents. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support it then, seeing as how we have posted lesser snowstorms in the past. I still don't believe it's all that much of a big deal, but maybe I've just been through too many nor'easters to notice the impact. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historic Blizzard per above last one was 8 years ago, also may I remind that the storm has not Dissipated yet nor has damage estimates come in yet as it is the death count has risen by at least 3 since this was first posted here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Huge storm with impacts for millions. Death toll growing. Dominating story in the news cycle in numerous venues. I think this is a good ITN blurb that leads to a good article that many Wikipedia readers will appreciate reading. I am unimpressed by the opposes. Jusdafax00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you are unimpressed by the opposes but I could say I am unimpressed by the supports; It may well be dominating the news cycle in the affected areas, but outside of those areas it just gets a brief mention if any at all, in the overall scheme of winter weather it is not actually very significant at the moment lots of other places have got more than average snow this winter, most of Europe did at the start of January, Moscow for example is looking at its coldest winter in 20 years (see here). The current version of the article is full of those annoying yellow "This section requires expansion." and {{citation needed}} which as it stands would stop it's posting anyway. LightGreenAppletalk to me01:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you live? I'm not sure looking out your window is an adequate assessment of the storms impact over such a large area. --IP98 (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I get that it an unusual weather event that has caused lots of disruption, but if we posted all of them - as opposed to those that cause lots of deaths - ITN would be full of them. There are too many disasters to post those that are just disruptive, without being particularly deadly (save in exceptional circumstances). This, like most highly disruptive but not very deadly weather events, dominates the news where it is occurring but is not a particularly big story internationally. Neljack (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the front page of the BBC's page, as well as Le Monde, Xinhua, as well as the other sources listed in the nom; clearly it is a big international story. 331dot (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A forecasted blizzard New England in the winter months, with no major death toll? Nope. Sandy's one thing - a late season hurricane that far north is unusual, but snowfall in Feb. in the NE US is not. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three feet over such a wide area is unusual, especially in Long Island and southern New England, but really everywhere. The last storm of this scale was in 1978. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objection We supposedly have 14 casualties, mostly from car crashes, two or three from heart attacks, and two carbon monoxide poisonings. In the area that was affected by snow, how many car crashes, heart attacks during yard work, and carbon monoxide poisonings would there have been regardless of the storm? This is not people crushed by earthquakes, drowned in storm surges, impaled by flying tornado debris, or killed in any way directly attributable to the storm. Not a single death. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One CO poisoning was a child in a car where snow was blocking the tailpipe; the car crashes were due to the poor weather conditions which wouldn't have been there at that moment if not for this storm. The deaths aren't the only notable aspect of this. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is beyond obvious that this is a significant event, the worst storm to hit the region since at least 1978. It is front page news thoughout the United States. The oppose votes have no merit or logic other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I request that an admin immediately mark this for listing, and that we move on to the next story. JehochmanTalk02:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also front page or close to it news around the world. This isn't the page to suggest entries for the "injury, death, and destruction box" of the main page, it's the "in the news" box and this is in the news in most of the world; while injury and deaths are an indicator of scale and importance of an event; it's not the only criterion. 331dot (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is dumbfounding. This story seems to be making headlines around the world -- it is most certainly in the news -- but the objections to posting this are...
It's hype. It is not our problem to decide that things that are in the news should not be. And I'd hardly call a storm that dumps more than two feet of snow in major cities, causing the disruption that has occurred, "hype". Oh, but to some people, travel disruption does not a story make:
Not enough people died. This is a blizzard, not an earthquake. Escaping death from a snowstorm predictable days in advance is not challenging for able-bodied people, so long as they're not venturing on the roads -- something that would be unlikely to occur, considering driving was banned on all Connecticut and Massachusetts roads for the first time since 1978. (Oh, but that's not significant, because we need people to die in order for events to be significant.) Note that the North American blizzard of 2003, ranking third-highest on the Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale, was directly responsible for only two deaths. The scale and impact of snowstorms should primarily be measured by other factors.
Not even a meter of snow fell. You can't be serious. A bit of context would be nice. Not everyone lives in Scandinavia or northern Canada or Siberia; the amount of snow seen in parts of New England during this storm is unusual in the vast majority of the world. And we're not even talking about three inches in Los Angeles; we're talking about a once-in-a-decade storm for a region that is used to seeing a significant amount of snow each winter. That you or your neighbors would say/are saying 'ho hum' to this type of storm doesn't change that fact that for the area affected this is a major storm.
During winter, it snows. I don't even know how to respond to this.
If this happened in China, we wouldn't post it. This is the classic ITN oppose rationale, and it is unsubstantiated by what actually transpires here. Our desire to counter systematic bias (which should not be in ITN's mission, mind you) goes so far that it creates counter-systematic bias. I'd venture to guess that we'd actually be much more willing to post this if it occurred in China, because we couldn't make the claim that this is only getting press because it's in an Anglophone country. Note, for example, in the Solomon Islands earthquake nomination below, we had people saying that it would have been posted [faster] if the area struck were somewhere closer to the U.S. and Europe. Surely, if this had occurred there, we'd get people opposing because if it had occurred in the South Pacific, we'd never post it.
Honestly, folks. I don't understand what's so difficult about this. While this may not be the biggest story in the world right now, this is making news in many sources around the world. This is something people will be looking for, and the article on this event is shaping up to be quite decent. Whether you believe the media is wrong to cover it is irrelevant. Whether you live in a place that sees three feet of snow every hour (congratulations) is irrelevant. The minimum death threshold in your mind is irrelevant. This is a story that's in the news that many of our readers will be interested in. Case closed. This should be posted. -- tariqabjotu03:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for ITN are "the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content". They do not say that anything that gets sufficient news attention must be posted. Rather we have to make a judgment of the significance of an event. The extent of news coverage can be evidence of that, but only evidence; it's not conclusive. We are entitled to decide that this is over-hyped. There are lots of things that are top international stories, but are considered too ephemeral or otherwise insignificant to post here. For instance, Gen. Allen's comments about ISAF being on the road to victory in Afghanistan are above this storm on the BBC News main page, but would never get posted here because we rightly judge that comments or speeches by public figures, however prominently they may be featured in the media, are generally too ephemeral and insignificant to be posted. The media also suffers from systemic bias. You may not think we should worry about systemic bias, but Wikipedia has recognised that it needs to be combated. Thus we are not free to disregard this bias, and cannot just rely on the media given its prevalence there. Neljack (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but our judgment call should be based on what readers are likely to be looking for information on. They are unlikely to go on Wikipedia, either now or ever, to find what Gen. Allen said about the ISAF. They are, however, likely to come here to find information on this storm (and that will likely continue to be the case into the future). And if you read WP:CSB, you'll see the "countering systemic bias" concept is intended to address gaps in our article coverage, not insist that Main Page sections (especially one titled "In the news") post or not post items because we have too many or not enough articles from specific regions. -- tariqabjotu03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you insist on running this discussion under Hot Soups ready note? I thought it was an honest mistake (ctrl-end + comment + click save). Sorry, I'm not very smart... --IP98 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tariq, can you show one single source that rates this storm on the "Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale"? One? Every blizzard has its area of maximum impact--but this is not a 24" storm in the entire NE. There are plenty of blizzards in which trees fall through houses, people freeze in their cars and houses. Not Here. You simply claim opposes are in bad faith or especially not based on IDON'TLIKEIT. This is a big storm but tomorrow the LAPD sniper or something will be on the front page. If this still is we can post it then. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because storms are assessed on the scale well after the event, based on the population affected and snow totals. That's how the scale works. -- tariqabjotu03:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say counting the areas effected, the number of deaths, and the amount of snow produced this more than qualifies, plus the storm had not faded out yet so its not over. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, I am not responding to you anymore as you insist on adhering to poor discussion etiquette, posting in the wrong place (and objecting when someone politely corrects you) and adding substantial information to a comment even after the addressee has responded to it. Take my comment as you like. I know you don't agree, and this looks likely to be posted without your consent. -- tariqabjotu03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consent? I am fairly sure you could have posted this yourself, and I would not have complained. You cannot fault me for asking you for a source regarding the very criterion you chose to give. And I certainly don't apologize for getting pissed of at 98 for causing me three edit conflicts losing my posts twice with his pointless gamesmanship. A ready marking is not some part of a thread whose relative position matters. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is a closed topic now, but "Gamesmanship"? I tried to correct what I saw was an honest mistake. You were replying to a thread below a different thread. Then you posted some angry caps lock comments, but I've no idea why. Heres a simple edit conflict resolution trick: before clicking save, copy your text to the clipboard. It's Ctrl-C on windows and PC GNU/Linux, and I'm sure Mac has some shortcut or other for it. --IP98 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was unsure earlier, but I've been looking at Medeis' statements in opposition, and I can't find a justification for anything he says and I can't find anything to refute the statements of Tariqabjotu or Tropicalanaylist. RyanVesey03:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the spirited discussion. Keep in mind that severity of a storm isn't just to total snow or the total deaths. This storm had high winds, up to 90 mph, and snow fell at an incredible rate. In parts of CT it was 4" - 5" per hour. 1" per hour is heavy snow. Bridgeport CT had 30" of snow; the previous record was 17" something like 100 years ago. Tonight temperatures will fall to single digits Fahrenheit. For the hundreds of thousands of snowbound people who still have no power or heat, it is an incredibly miserable experience. We can do our small part by providing a concise summary of all the facts in one convenient place. JehochmanTalk03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support My initial impulse was to oppose on the basis that snow in the Northeastern US isn't newsworthy, but this blizzard meets the criteria. There's too many subjective opposes in this discussion, enough to convince me to support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is pretty much the center of attention for all media sources out there. There is a death toll, and this storm wasn't your average snow flurry. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true. It's not on the top section of the BBC News website or the Xinhua website, and only merits a minor story on the world page of The Guardian website. Neljack (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I resolved the orange expansion notice for Canada (the storm is still affecting that area), and the similar notice for the meteorological history is basically just to copy information from the lead...which appears to be happening at the moment. The current semi-lack of full meteorological history doesn't compromise the article, since it's in the lead. Other than that, just general notability strongly suggests that this should be an ITN item. (Edit: And the second orange-flagged expansion noticed is fixed now as well.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb The current blurb can be shortened quite a bit to "A blizzard (satellite image pictured) disrupts transportation and electricity to hundreds of thousands in the Northeastern United States and parts of Canada" without losing any of the current information. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The Indian parliament, attacks main convict was hanged earlier today in the morning. Kashmir is on the edge. Curfew has been imposed in ten districts. Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir monitoring law and order situation of the valley- Kashmir. India-Pakistan relations were on a boil following the attacks. The event is being featured in major publications and is trending in Google News [US, UK, Austrlia]. The location of the attacks, the aftermath of the attacks should be considered in totality before forming an opinion on the ITN candidacy. I don't think that "the culmination of a judicial process" makes any "execution" ITNC unworthy. Regards, theTigerKing 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Regards, theTigerKing03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He confessed. We simply don't do executions of confessed murderers. Neither would we even list this as a recent death ticker. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was the mastermind/plotter of the Indian Parliament attacks. And since when, "executions of confessed murderers" are not considered for ITN?Regards, theTigerKing04:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might change this to "The execution of Afzal Guru for his role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack sparks riots (or a curfew, or whatever)" and give support for that if you want this posted. But no, we don't normally post executions, and even those of people who proclaim their innocence aren't usually posted. μηδείς (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notability lies in the attacks on the Parliament of India and not on preventive steps taken to maintain law and order situation.Regards, theTigerKing07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The attacks on the Parliament were 11 years ago: they cannot be claimed as the main story of what is in the news now. Enactment of court decision is routine. Oppose, review if protests have a major impact. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ajmal Kasab was convicted for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. That was in November 2008. The event featured in ITN. The Supreme Court of India upheld his death sentence. A blurb was nominated at that time which related his sentencing with the attacks. The consensus was to put it on hold until executed. He was executed in December 2012 and this featured in ITN. What made it notable was the causalities reported from 50+nations. Was there a fallout because of his hanging? The answer is unequivocal No! Neither there were any protests nor did the hanging have any impact. Now, lets cut short to this nomination. It does not intend to nominate the event which happened in the past. So the question is what makes this execution notable? The answer is that the attacks were on the very foundation of a democracy- The Parliament of India. Hence, the execution was covered by the global media. The execution of Dhananjoy_Chatterjee would not have made it to ITN. This is what I personally believe. Just a case by case approach is needed. [Or it could be the posting of Ajmal Kasab in ITN has set a bad precedent.]Regards, theTigerKing14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The matter has been covered by many international press, and being a "high profile" case which has been connected to "National security of India" this news deserves a place in ITN. AmartyabagTALK2ME05:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The notable thing would have been this man's sentencing or conclusion of his trial, and additionally the attack was over ten years ago. I'm weak opposing this because the execution does seem to be widely covered, and I would reconsider my opinion if any protests get out of hand or are very widespread. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb and RD per ITN/DC #1 and #2. Maybe a blurb under ITN/DC #3 if there are significant protests. BTW: some which were not posted include "John Allen Muhammad" and "Minsk Metro bombing convicts". --IP98 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: He was convicted of being part of a terrorist attack against the parliament of the largest democracy, and of waging war against the country. It was not a simple murder convict. Huge fallout as well. There is a curfew imposed across Jammu and Kashmir. Local private channels have been suspended. Home Ministry has refused to release the body to the family to avoid a funeral procession spectacle. State security forces have been fully deployed. Separatist groups have called for a four-day mourning. Extremely notable execution, IMO. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notability here is entirely parasitic on the criminal act, which occurred 12 years ago. We don't treat sentences themselves as notable. (John Smith is serving 30 years... would not make ITN.) Other than a nice opportunity for cheering it, the execution of this man who admitted guilt is simply not encyclopedic level news. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a matter to be cheered. But this execution is similar to that of Kasab (which we posted) and this has received significant international news coverage (national news channels have almost not shown anything else since the Home Ministry announcement yesterday). There has been significant fallout to the execution as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for blurb, strong support for RD ticker. Unless there are major protests, this event just isn't notable enough for a blurb.--xanchester(t)07:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RD inclusion
Support This had been proposed as a ITN blurb story around the execution, which I opposed. We have not established a system for counter-proposals, and this subsection is probably not ideal, but there seems to be some support above for RD inclusion above (Xanchester at least) so it merits discussion apart from the story. Notoriety of individual makes his death worth putting in RD, it is not intended to be only about obituaries of the honourable. Kevin McE (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD because in this case it's the act of execution that's news, not the act of dying. It seems the same, but hanging != stroke. The protests were limited, with few injuries and no deaths. FWIW I honestly don't think RD is the right tool for the job for an execution, and that any one would need to get a blurb under ITN/DC #3. --IP98 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed you from my note at the beginning of the subsection: hope I hadn't misrepresented you there. Nevertheless, I would argue that he meets DC 2: he is internationally regarded as a very important figure in terrorism. Kevin McE (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I actually felt kind of bad for having to contradict you. Honestly, if the article had a paragraph or two explaining how he qualifies for DC #2, I would change to support. --IP98 (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD As per the last segment of the last line of Kevin. An RD would give the subject a "celebrity status" in the eyes of many (especially me). Its the only reason why I nominated it for blurb only.Regards, theTigerKing15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nine women are shot to death in the Nigerian city of Kano. According to reports, all of them were involved in a polio vaccination policy and were most probably killed by the Islamist movement Boko Haram, which has previously threatened to target those involved in vaccinations. (BBC)
Arts and culture
The cover of the latest edition of Lucy Maud Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables arouses controversy among readers as the orphan with the "very thick, decidedly red hair" and the "much freckled" face is transformed into a blonde, buxom farm girl with come-hither eyes. This follows the recent controversy over a new cover for Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar which portrays a young woman applying make-up. (The Guardian)
2010–2013 Greek protests: As demonstrations, protests and rallies against the government decisions to close down or downgrade schools and hospitals continue, in Ierapetra, Crete, over 7,000 people, including students, stage a peaceful march, holding candles and torches, to protest the forthcoming closure of the one of two technical schools and the only hospital of the region. (Zougla.gr)
In Tunisia, the funeral of the opposition politician Chokri Belaid takes place as over a million people gather in mourning amid major protests. A general strike is declared. Tunis Airport is closed and all flights suspended. (BBC)
Oppose Apparently it's believed the marker damage will be easily cleaned, and giving this front page coverage would be undue weight the nutjob doesn't deserve. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure I get your point, and it's one of my favorite paintings, but apparently easily reparable damage just isn't notable. If you find a source that says it isn't expected to be reparable do post it--it would easily be supportable on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, visual art gets very few postings here, could be some good variety. Is there an available English-language source which details the extent of the damage? LukeSurltc10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Notable works of art being vandalized in museums is a rare event, though it currently appears the painting was not permanently damaged. Though I do support this, I can understand its not being posted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is in quite a good shape, and this is certainly covered by news sources currently. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be displayed on the main page. --Jayron3215:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a good article and yes it's a nice image, and yes the painting's something that would be great for the front page. But it's still being reported the damagi will easily be fixed--so the actual news is "28 year old lunatic's marker scrawl will be erased". If we want to change ITN into a second FA ticker that would be fine with me, I'd rather not see articles about soccer matches and bus crashes, and only articles about fine art and scientific exploration and archaeological discoveries. Barring that perhaps we can see what's needed to get the article to good article status (I have never worked on that myself) and put it as a featured article? μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is simply lack of art stories in the ITN and this one appears to fit properly. We don't need to contest the issue of whether it's a world-known painting or not since the notability depends purely on the act of vandalism that has occurred. It's definitely not The Night Watch, Mona Lisa or Girl with a Pearl Earring, but Delacroix is surely famous that one of his foremost works should be considered as worth artistic piece. The fact its damage receives echo on a certain level through the media surely gives another plus to its notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a single act of vandalism, which according to The Independent will not be lasting. The article itself currently says it took less than 2 hours to remove "without damaging the original paint"{{cn}} and the painting was back on view the next day. LightGreenAppletalk to me23:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Lack of art stories" isn't a sufficient reason to post this one. As the damage isn't permanent, then I'm not seeing the significance. This isn't like the theft or record sale price for a painting. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not permanent damage. Doesn't matter how famous the piece is (aka mona lisa). If the perpetrator had to defeat some sort of security mechanism to do it (ie bullet proof plexiglass case) then maybe. Agree that is sucks this happened, glad it was restored. --IP98 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would support if the vandalism was permanent. But since it's easily fixed, the historic impact of the event is minimal. ITN does need more art stories, but this isn't one.--xanchester(t)07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A diplomatic dispute between Romania and Hungary erupts as a Hungarian government official and the ambassador in Bucharest make commentaries that trigger large criticism from the Romanian side. (Nine O'clock)
A major crisis deepens in Tunisia after the murder of Chokri Belaid. The leading party Ennahda states that it will not accept a new government, even if suggested by its leading member, Prime MinisterHamadi Jebali. In today's clashes at least one person died. (BBC)
Comment. If this is posted, the blurb should be reworded to make clear the information Medeis points out. The current wording suggests that it was either launched from Azerbaijan or constructed there(or both).331dot (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Any notability of it being their first satellite is cancelled out by the fact that it was launched by the French and built by Americans; they paid someone to build and launch a satellite. If it was either built by them or launched from their territory, it would be ITN worthy, but not as it is now. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure this won't fly because it's Africa and there's a perception that multiple deaths in an accident is the norm, but a single collision between a bus and lorry has killed over 50 people. I imagine an article is worthy of creation for such a disaster. Worth a thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not because it's Africa, but because it's just a traffic accident. It's tragic with a high death toll, but that's all. I had considered nominating this one but I thought we were over traffic accidents here and decided not to. --IP98 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was 7 people, this is at least 53... odd comparison. Two vehicles collide and kill at least 53 people. You think your link is of any comparative use? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per IP98; unless it was more than an accident (like a deliberate action or act of terrorism) the death toll isn't high enough IMO to list in ITN; I would support it if it was closer to triple digits. Also not seeing it being widely reported yet. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, if 53 people were killed in a bus/lorry crash in downtown Manhattan or in London or in Paris or in Toronto or in Madrid, this wouldn't even being debated, would it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would feel the same way if it was in Manhattan, London, Beijing, Johannesburg, the Moon, Mars, the Andromeda Galaxy, or even across the street from me......the location is irrelevant to me. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for your clarification but I'm afraid I doubt it in the extreme. And if a bus/lorry crash occurred on the Moon and you didn't consider it sufficient for ITN, you'd be a liar. Anyway, if an aircraft crashed killing 50 people, in an "accident", not a "deliberate action or act of terrorism", you'd be in favour of posting it. Wouldn't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my sarcasm but I was just trying to make the point that the location wasn't relevant in my opinion of this event. I still wouldn't be sure about an aircraft accident killing 50, although aircraft accidents are much rarer than traffic accidents. I opposed a recent plane crash that killed only 8 or so due to the low death toll. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so a traffic accident involving just two vehicles which has killed over 50 people doesn't make your "notability" bar? Man alive, you live a whole different world from me... I'm glad I live where I live. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable, but it was my understanding that ITN had a global reach, and I don't think (regrettably) that the deaths of 50 people have much influence in a world of 7 billion people. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you have other examples of a two-vehicle crash which killed over 50 people? The population of the world is entirely irrelevant, of course, and maybe I now understand why your oppose is irrelevant because that kind of logic makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is here to solicit opinions; I gave mine. Feel free to disagree; but my opinion is no less valid than yours and if yours is considered mine needs to be as well. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I would support it if it was closer to triple digits". Unless people are standing, the capacities of most (single-decker) buses is about 55, and the capacity of a truck is two or three. So, there's no way this would have been triple digits. -- tariqabjotu22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, a truck hit a bus. 49 people on the bus died, 2 in the truck died. How is this not a tragic traffic accident? Will bus design change world wide? Will the bus or truck manufacturer be sued? Will the UN commission on bus safety issue an international arrest warrant for the operating company president, with that person being tried at the Hague? "ence the notability for the substantial death toll." 100's of thousands of people killed by a tsunami is a substantial death toll, this is a traffic accident. Come on. --IP98 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support 53 deaths isn't "just a traffic accident" a few deaths is just a traffic accident. 53 deaths is a regional tragedy at a very minimum. That said, I'm assuming we'll be linking bus and lorry collide. If we don't, we should include a wikilink to lorry since many of us wouldn't know what that meant. Even still, both the term "lorry" and "truck" seem ambiguous in terms of size, especially since the first image used in the article is this one. Once we find out what type of truck it was, we should update it to say semi-truck (or tractor trailer, take your pick), pickup-truck, dump-truck, or whatever it turns out to be. RyanVesey21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an ENGVAR issue, and I don't think 'lorry' is a problem. I notice that all but one of your proposed alternatives incorporates 'truck'. That said, the terminology is much less important than the story itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What would the term be in Zambia? It is an English-speaking country, we should use whichever term is used there. Can we find a Zambian news source? --LukeSurltc22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources are saying "near Chibombo" rather than Chifamba. Perhaps would be worth determining the two nearest towns along the road in question and placing that information in the article. (i.e. "...occurred on the road between X and Y.") --LukeSurltc 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC) --update: looking across the sources, it seems Chibombo is the most used place-of-reference. LukeSurltc23:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff the article can be extended to a decent length. Generally speaking, outside of known conflict zones, disasters with fatalities of over 40 people are pretty much inherently notable. We may have to wait for a sufficient volume of information to be published in reliable sources before the article is of an adequate level of detail for posting. --LukeSurltc22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got 5 sentences in, but my food just got here so I'm done for a while. I'm assuming one or some of the images found at this link would be appropriate for the article, right? There's no way of getting a free image. It also looks like we'll need to change the blurb to read a three vehicle accident RyanVesey22:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far, all the news sources seem to be interpretations on the same AP wire story. Does anyone know of, or have the requisite Google skills to find, any sources of more original information? Zambian news perhaps? It is an anglophone country. --LukeSurltc22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support We regularly post disasters with fewer deaths that this, and a similar accident in a Western country would almost certainly be posted. I am somewhat bemused by the suggestion that a traffic accident that kills 50 people is less notable that an air crash that kills the same number - I'd say traffic accidents that kill 50 or more people are probably rarer than air crashes with that level of fatalities. Neljack (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though I oppose posting this to the main page, I would like to say well done to Ryan Vessey, LukeSurl and Medeis. From no article to one good enough for MP in just a few hours. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A state owned financial institution dissolved, it's promissory notes replaced with bonds backed by the government. I usually oppose updates in the financial crisis, but this one seemed like a big deal .
Weak support - Large corporation dissolved, direct state intervention, and we don't often post business stories (recent Dell posting notwithstanding). But it is only one corporation, and only one nation, which is why my endorsement is not stronger. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to financial matters, but the article doesn't fully explain to me as to what this entity was. For the sake of my financially-clueless kin I would ask that this be strengthened before any main page posting. --LukeSurltc22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two banks, the Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society were merged into the "Irish Bank Resolution Corporation" in 2011, after being taken over by the state in 2009. This is all part of the financial crisis. Basically the "Bank Resolution Corporation" existed to clean up what was left of the other two banks. What I found strange is that it was done with an emergency late night session, though I still can't understand why. --IP98 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is where the notability lies? The unexplained suddenness of it. The lack of time given to legislators to even read the thing thoroughly. Section 6 instantly sacked hundreds of people and Section 17 gave additional powers to the finance minister which one Independent member of the Opposition said was likely to be unconstitutional and "a fundamental erosion of parliamentary democracy." It is certainly not an every day event.
Two things: It's still not on the article, and I read on the article "$200 million". I dunno if that's related here, and while that seems a lot, it's dwarfed by the $24 billion Dell buyout that elicited "so what?" and "not interested" responses below. Heck, the ponzi scheme of Aman Futures Group beats this by a a hundred million dollars (12 billion Philippine pesos is about 295 million dollars). –HTD11:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second semifinal between Burkina Faso and Ghana goes to extra-time, with Burkina Faso denied a potentially winning goal by Tunisian referee Slim Jedidi. The referee also ejects Jonathan Pitroipa, when replays show he was fouled. Burkina Faso wins, 1–1 (penalties: 3–2), and advances to the final. (Goal.com)(Al Jazeera)(BBC)
Do we report when football teams change their strips? Or move ground, for that matter? My point is not that Monopoly is not important, but that this is a superficial aspect of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're really straining my ability to assume good faith. If you've raised this proposal in order to make a point about the relative importance we appear to attach to different areas of human activity, I'd advise you to withdraw it. It would be better to state your point clearly and directly, with coherent arguments, in a more appropriate forum. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this was a "waste of time", as it is being somewhat widely reported, but I don't think a minor change like this is notable enough for ITN. I would be curious to know if it was posted when they changed the color of Mediterranean and Baltic avenues from purple to brown, though(the last change they made, I think) 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it's making news, but this is more of a "footballer kicks a ball into a net", "routine earthquake causes minimal damage", or "car accident in china injurs children", human interest story that we don't normally post, rather than a "massive corporate buyout" or "financian crisis narrowly averted" story that we do normally post. --IP98 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Oppose, this story certainly has value in terms of reader interest, but c'mon, haha. *I always want to point out that where I live, in the UK - Monopoly is also iconic. This was one of the most read-about stories on the BBC yesterday. (FYI, last game I played I bankrupted my brother, nothing better than that) --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Shokri Belaid (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Opposition politician An Shokri Belaid is assassinated in Tunisia (Post) Alternative blurb: Opposition politician Shokri Belaid is assassinated in Tunisia, sparking protests and a call for new elections. Credits:
I just created the article and it could do with a bit more work but nonetheless, support. The subject is notable enough and has potential to cause serious consequences in the country and potentially the region. --Droodkin (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely sure that he is more notable than the protests caused. The blurb should certainly mention the protests. I also don't understand the blurb as it stands right now. What is with the word "An"? Finally, his bio should certainly be expanded before this is posted. I'm left wondering who he was and what he did. He was a politician, was he actually involved in a branch of the Tunisian government? He was a lawyer, where did he work, what type of law did he practice? We're missing education information. Finally, what was his role in the revolution, and what has he done since? 5 sentences isn't going to cut it for this article, since we're starting from scratch rather than from an existing article. RyanVesey20:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article is coming along nicely regarding the death of Tunisia's opposition leader, though it has a few issues like the name in the infobox seemingly being misspelled. This is a reasonably big story around the world, and the lead headline in Aljazeera, and has symbolic impact across the Arab world, since Tunisia was where the Arab Spring started. I agree that the blurb needs an updating re: widespread protests/riots, and I have offered an alt blurb that can be further modified if need be. Also notable is the fact that Shokri Belaid semi-predicted his own violent death the day before the assassination, according to the article. Jusdafax00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point since all that is stated is that he was a lawyer pre-assassination. The fact that he was a lawyer associated with a leftist party doesn't improve that according to NPOV wikipedia standards. If he was a major party candidate that's another thing, but that hasn't been added to the article or otherwise supported. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have put the fact that he was an "opposition leader," per the Aljazeera ref, into the lede, as well as the notable fact that his assassination brought down the government, with new elections called by the Prime Minister. Jusdafax04:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still concerned with the length. It's fine for a short article to go on the main page, but this is rather incomplete. Perhaps once it hits the main page, it will get improved. I'm still wondering why the blurb reads "An Shokri Belaid" what's with "An"? I can't find it in any of the sources. RyanVesey04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would normally be Ash Shokri Belaid, (for the more classical Al Shokri Belaid) assuming the prefix is the definite article. Otherwise it should probably just be deleted, unless An- is a normal demonstrable form of Al in Tunisian? μηδείς (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the "al", and agree with the additional expansion regarding the government. I notice Aljazeera spells it "Shokri", where the NYT and Reuters spell his first name "Chokri." I have also added a bit more per Ryan's concerns regarding Belaid's opposition to Salafists. This was the first time I had heard of this term, and the link goes to a substantial article. Jusdafax06:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chokri would just be the expected French transcription of what in English would be Shokri, as Chicago is pronounced Shikago. μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, thankfully. We post according to effect, not simply power, and casualties and fatalities are mercifully low (as far as we know at present: obviously open to change if catastrophic effects not yet come to wider attention) Kevin McE (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with the above for smaller earthquakes, but magnitude>8 earthquakes occur on average once per year, and I think that they're notable enough in that right for ITN even without big death and destruction. However, the article is disproportionately weighted towards the (at the moment small) human effects of the earthquake, and has very little in the way of encyclopedic analysis (such as links to underwater earthquake or the specific type of tectonic interaction that resulted in the quake). 128.214.198.120 (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even if we did post quakes solely based on power, the magnitude here doesn't crack the top 30 or so (according to Lists of earthquakes). Effects also currently seem relatively minimal; if that changes we can revisit the issue. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 8.0 or greater earthquakes are rare, generally about 1-2 a year on average I believe, so this is close. However, given the very minimal effects I'd say no.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lethal tsunamis are not that common, at least five dead and four villages destroyed with an 8.0 quake is notable and would certainly be posted if it happened in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. The article is technically updated, and the fact that the Earthquake Mavens haven't gotten to it yet is not an issue for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - As earthquakes go, this was surprisingly mild in effect for its strength. That said, Medeis is right: this would be news elsewhere, so it's news here. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a earthquake, tsunami with deaths, and a 1/2 times a year event. Effects seem minimal and there's at least five deaths? That seems like not very minimal to me. gwickwiretalkedits18:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that this five-death event is prominently In The News; that is, reliable news sources give it prominence, which seems to me to be a far better criterion than "I just don't like it" or "I just don't think this is important enough". We don't post every five-death event. We post events which are currently at the top of news sources, and which have adequate Wikipedia articles, not merely those that have been so blessed as "worthy" based on some arbitrarily set of standards. --Jayron3219:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has their own standards, for better or for worse, arbitrary or not. The purpose of these discussions is to get a consensus as to what can meet everyone's different standards. There have been many widely covered events with good articles that don't get posted because they don't achieve consensus. This isn't a case of "I don't like it"; in my opinion the effects of this event are minimal and not far-reaching. Part of that is that there was only five deaths, but that isn't my sole criterion in forming my opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all true, but I did not first make a statement characterizing the opinion of another editor as invalid (though in a roundabout way). You did that. If you're gonna give in that department, you should take. I recognize that you have the right to your opinion. If you're going to discount or belittle the opinion of others, as you did, you can't then be sensitive when the same happens to you. If you want to merely have your own standards, then do so without making such comment on others. Had you not commented, I would have not had any cause to comment back, and would have left you to your initial opinion. --Jayron3202:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say your opinion was "invalid", I gave a reason that we shouldn't go by it. Very different. You did the same thing, which is fine. If I thought your opinion was invalid, I would say so outright. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't use that word, but you clearly discounted another's rationale using strawman language which belittled it. There are many ways to attempt to invalidate others, some more insidious... --Jayron3215:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you did was belittle someone's reasoning by implying that they were arguing that every five-death event should always be posted to ITN. They didn't do that, and charactizing their arguement in that way is a strawman. Cleverly crafted strawmen arguments that leave plausible deniability don't become innocuous merely because the person who made it shrugs and states "What? What did I do?" It's intellectually dishonest to present a clear strawman attack on someone elses opinion and then pretend like you didn't just do that. --Jayron3219:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you may believe what you wish. I know what I did and am perfectly content with it. I'm willing to discuss it further on my talk page if you wish, but I have little interest in doing so on this page as it is getting off topic. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Widespread coverage, and the article is well-written. Remote location means death toll is likely to grow (the article says six deaths now.) 8.0 Quakes are not that common. Agree with those noting that if this had happened in the Caribbean or Mediterranean with the same death toll, that it would be an easier "sell" for an ITN blurb. Jusdafax21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this may be widely covered, but I'm not convinced of the notability of this. Not in the top 30 earthquakes, low damage, low deathtoll. We frown upon all kinds of stories that are widely reported, so that alone doesn't do it for me. --IP98 (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In those examples, there was either a lot of damage (Krakatoa and Lisbon) or notable structures were damaged (the Virginia quake damaged the Washington Monument, among other things). We don't have that here, nor was it powerful relative to past earthquakes. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency; large earthquakes have always been posted, and smaller ones have been subject to debate. The area is cut off from communications, so details will continue to trickle in. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff, in my opinion, is what is covered In The News, since this section we're discussing is titled "In The News". When it gets titled "What I Think Is Important Enough", then we'll be able to work through your criteria. --Jayron3202:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, generally. However, there are stories that will always be breaking news. Among them are "shots heard near school", "explosion observed at U.S. embassy", "Kate Middleton admitted to hospital", and, yes, "8.0-magnitude earthquake recorded". But even the media recognizes that sometimes these stories, once details are fleshed out, are just of the dog-bites-man variety. We need to recognize when that's the case, when the media, upon learning more, decides to move on. So maybe this was in the news twelve hours ago, but, from what I see, this is very much not in the news now. -- tariqabjotu03:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; if we're going to post things because they "are in the news", we need to bring back a lot of events that were rejected(pretty much all of them). It isn't just what is "in the news", nor is it what you or I think is important, it is what consensus determines to be notable enough for inclusion on the front page of Wikipedia. Importance and "in the news" play into that, but so do all our opinions. 331dot (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, those who supported this before it was a five foot tsunami that destroyed several villages and killed at least five (probably not white) people probably shouldn't have. But lethal tsunamis don't happen as often as deadly tornados or European protest marches. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it isn't merely being in the news, it is what news sources are covering it, and what prominence they give to it in their coverage. When major, national and international news organizations run a long, in depth story which appears at or near the top of their coverage (first few stories on main pages, front page on print news, cover stories on magazines, top stories on TV and Radio news, etc) that's the kind of evidenciary based criteria we should be debating here, not the tallies of deaths or other criteria we ourselves invent. Instead, we should be evaluating sources themselves and saying "The BBC gave this a three sentence story which is completely buried and impossible to find" or "The only sources covering this are highly local newspapers without any national or international reach" OR "The BBC, New York Times, and Al Jazeera are all running multiple, in-depth stories covering this topic, and those stories are prominently displayed" are the sorts of rationales we should be presenting when assessing stories like this. "There's only five deaths" shouldn't even enter into the discussion. The point of ITN is not to promote the sorts of stories we personally find worthwhile. The point of ITN is to direct readers to Wikipedia articles that cover topics they are seeing in the news. Highly prominent news stories out there which also have decent articles in here should be be the sorts of things we base our discussions around because that's what serves our readers. --Jayron3203:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jayron, it didn't sound like your response to IP98 was simply a disagreement with his question as a matter of procedure. In a subthread up above, you said this was in the news, without saying to what extent. I contest that; it's hard to find stories about this unless I just Google them. And when I locate them, they're hardly in depth. I don't know if this comment here was just a response to 331dot, but I already took the approach you suggested (noting the quantity and quality of news sources) in comments above and below, while discounting the use of magnitude or death levels as thresholds for inclusion on ITN. -- tariqabjotu04:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC website had a top-level headline story about this when the quake hit, and news cycles being what they are, it isn't there this instant, but it was there. Same for CNN.com, though the story has moved from the main page to the #3 story on the world page; such movement happens with nearly every story on major news sites: it's exceedingly rare for any story to stay on the main page for more than a day. This was the lead story on NPR when it hit. If I tuned up All Things Considered tonight, a different story would air. Most of the major news outlets are running follow-on stories today as well. So this one is clearly getting prominent treatment. There's still a main page BBC story right now covering the aftermath, This one is on www.bbc.com right now. If you wait 2 days any story is going to roll off the front page of many news sources. It doesn't mean it wasn't given prominent treatment. So, you can't just wait two days and then decide that this earthquake was a minor story by trying to find the news headlines on the websites. No story stays the top headline that long. --Jayron3205:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would say 6.0. However, those questions don't mean anything without context, and that's really what I believe posting earthquakes should be about. And that comes from both angles. The angle it was a magnitude 8.0, so let's post it is wrong. The angle it's not among the highest magnitude earthquakes in the past X years, so let's not post it is doubly wrong. Most of the most prolific earthquakes in history have not been earthquakes of this magnitude; among them, 2010 Haiti (7.0), 2010 Christchurch (6.7), 1999 Chi-Chi (7.1), 1999 Izmit (7.6), 1995 Kobe (6.8), and 1994 Northridge (6.7). And those are not difficult to find; most prolific earthquakes you could probably think of had magnitudes less than 8.0. Many faults are incapable of achieving magnitudes of that caliber (that's about the maximum earthquake that could theoretically be generated on the San Andreas Fault, for example). Perhaps more important than magnitude in predicting whether an earthquake will be disastrous are the density of the area, the quality of the structures in the area, and the soil conditions. The primary exceptions to that rule are with tsunamis, but they are generally catastrophic when they are due to high[er]-magnitude earthquakes from subduction zones.
And, given the high seismicity of sparsely populated parts of the Pacific, 8.0-magnitude earthquakes that cause very little damage, like this one, are not at all uncommon (as demonstrated by the USGS link above), so the direct connection from magnitude to importance is just as tenuous. I could see us posting 9.0+-magnitude earthquakes no matter what because they're so rare (despite the fact that there have been a especially high number over the past decade), but generally the magnitude doesn't mean anything without context. Upon initial reports of a 8.0-magnitude earthquake happening somewhere on the planet, the media is quick to (rightly so) turn some attention toward it, since -- as shown -- earthquakes of that magnitude when positioned strategically could be catastrophic. But when nothing major is shown to have occurred, they tend to, rightly again, turn their attention away, putting it down as just another major earthquake that occurs on a remote part of this planet without much effect on human life. That's what happened here; at this hour, I have to dig deep to find news about this seismic event. I don't think we should overstate or understate the importance of an earthquake of this magnitude, but, this one at least, is not particularly notable. -- tariqabjotu02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nine dead now.[5] Covered in NZ, Aus[6], BBC[7] (linked from main world news page[8]). There are more prominent news items on each, including a Australian sport doping scandal, so I don't know. Leaning towards posting. AIRcorn(talk)04:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The article is fine, there appears sufficient support, and there it has been sufficient evidence that (perhaps because of aftershocks now) this story is still in the news. -- tariqabjotu07:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Dell story below, the supports and opposes are roughly equal, so I'm not clear on where the consensus to post it is. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but claiming consensus for a position would suggest that there was more support for one side than another, which I didn't see here. The issue is moot now, anyway. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But while consensus can be reflected by merely counting heads, it's not accurate at all: some opposes are worth more than others, based on the substance of the reasoning. I'd expect Tariq (and any other admin, for that matter) to have taken the time to read the all arguments put forward and to have made a decision based on the strength of each side. I'm not saying that was the case here though; like you said, it's moot now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Precedent seems to hold that gay marriage legalization is significant enough to post, particularly as it's becoming more common. SwarmX04:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose even when full legislation goes through. A shift in legislation is gradually happening worldwide: each step on the journey is not notable of itself. Eight other European countries have already enacted similar laws, and three others are on track to act before this. Blurb is misleading: proposed legislation only applies to 2 out of 4 constituent nations of UK. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on Oppose Partly for the same reason I opposed the Dell deal below, still got a long way to go in the processes, at least one more vote in the lower house and then at least three more in the upper house. LightGreenAppletalk to me08:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Because this is only the second reading. I'd support royal assent to the resulting act; the UK is a large jurisdiction, and the interaction of this measure with the presence of an established church provides a distinctive feature. But as it stands, this nomination is some months premature. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards supporting this; it's certainly being widely reported(it's on the front page of NBC News right now, aside from the other sources given) but a shorter blurb would be better. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. The issue for me is that the last asylum was closed for 20 years, so no major changes can really come of this. Also I can't figure out from the article what "state collusion" means exactly. Was it one corrupt bureaucracy, was is systemic across multiple government agencies? Lastly, the statement "mumbled a half-hearted apology" may be technically accurate, but it reads as POV. I would support this, but would like the above addressed. Before posting a reply with a link to the BBC, instead use that link as an inline ref and update the article :). --IP98 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the story, agree the blurb is too long. Looking at the BBC front page, their text is Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny apologises for the stigma and conditions suffered by women who were inmates of the Magdalene laundries. - perhaps we can work something from that? CaptRik (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's massive controversy over the "apology". [9][10][11] Best focus on the publication of the report and not cause any further distress to the survivors and the families of those worked to death. --86.40.193.234 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you conclude that? There's nothing else in the news in Ireland today and it's made it through Washington, Los Angeles and New York, across Europe and the Middle East. This is being compared to Nazi Germany and Soviet Gulags by survivors on the TV right now. So how can it not be "news"? --86.40.193.234 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been news 17 years ago when it ended, it might be news were someone being jailed on a serious charge now. Interviewing people and issuing reports is what the media and governments do. I hope you are not comparing this to Nazi and Soviet atrocities. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these sort of apologies for events decades in the past seem pretty common. Yea what happened is terrible, but that doesn't make it front page worthy. Hot Stop(Talk)04:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with LukeSurl's much better AltBlurb. While reports, apologies, etc, are certainly not inherently notable for ITN purposes, this one represents a substantial new admission of complicity in a very wide-ranging scandal of human rights abuses. It also comes amid discussions on whether Ireland should move to the 'Nordic model' of legal controls on sex work, prompted in part by the same religious groups responsible for the Laundries. This (and other discussions of state oppression) root this report in a wider contemporary and international context. That factor, combined with the considerable novelty of the admission, makes this worthy for ITN in my eyes. I will understand if other editors do not agree; reports are a marginal case. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The first blurb was confusing, this one works. A disturbing story I had not heard of. The release of the report is the key factor, and arguments that this happened years ago carry little weight. Jusdafax21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, post posting. This story has everything one would want in an ITN listing. Human interest, worldwide impact (given that the Church is on the hook all the way to the Vatican, and that some of the victims have immigrated), good legal basis for lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the Reuters article I linked: "the biggest leveraged buyout since the financial crisis", "biggest private equity-backed leverage buyout since Blackstone Group LP's takeout of the Hilton Hotels Group in July 2007 for more than $20 billion, and is the 11th-largest on record". Dell is also the world's third largest computer maker and on the Fortune 500. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So not much of importance really then. What impact will this have 5 years from now? Michael Dell will be a little richer for his gamble, that's about it. It's minor business news and I still oppose. PS Dell assembles computers and makes little, so I doubt it's the 3rd largest computer makers. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update this is a buyout of a public company, not company A absorbing company B. These sorts of things aren't that common. In addition, Ks0stm's points. The article needs an update though. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "So what?" "Not interested"? Please see PDN #1 above. FWIW I didn't give a damn about a 500 year old skeleton being identified as a long dead king, but I was still willing to acknowlede the significance, read the article update, and post a support. Kindly get real. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Witholding my support pending a proper update to the article. It seems significant, given Dell's status as a market leader in its industry, and business news is a minority topic; having a variety of topics is always a nice break from the sports-disaster-war-politics cycle. I would support this if I had more than one line of text to evaluate. If this is worth putting on the main page, its worth adding a paragraph or two to the article itself. --Jayron3219:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Four sentence update as of my writing, which is almost there. This is a significant deal which appears to meet ITN threshold. Oppose votes should not be regarded, as IP98 says. I also don't care about the bones of a dead king, but agree that was newsworthy enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Due to coverage in media, and Dell being a pretty decent article. Partly disagree with the comment from Muboshgu, who seems to suggest "newsworthy" is more important than WP:ENC. I think it likely that in as little as 10 years Richard III and his bones will be more valuable in our learning of humanity than a business buy out. Pedro : Chat 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry, on re-reading that came off as a touch aggresive to Muboshgu for which I apologise. My point is that in ten years time the circumstances and science of finding the bones of Richard is likely (IMHO) to be far more enriching an entry than a footnote about a reverse buy out in the article on a computer company. Pedro : Chat 20:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The claims of significance actually diminish this story: they read as "the biggest since not very long ago". We also need to cut to the actual substance of the story: Micheal Dell has let his intentions be known for several weeks at least, and this still requires shareholder approval. The story then is not one of any real solidity but amounts to the board reaching a decision to recommend the bid. 3142 (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still pretty significant, actually, especially when you think that 1) Wikipedia has only existed since 2001, so it's the largest in nearly half this site's history, and 2) it's still the 11th largest ever. This is also the appropriate time to post, not when Michael Dell said he wanted to buy back the company. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready well sourced update, decent article, no orange tags, consensus to support, with 2 of the 3 opposes being "so what" and "not interested". --IP98 (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The buyout is still subject to shareholder approval. However, we are talking about a major company making one of the largest transactions of its type in financial history. Resolute21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The price of $13.65 per share represents a 25 percent premium over Dell's stock price before news of a pending deal leaked in January. I'm not expecting opposition... --IP98 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced as to its notability - as has been noted elsewhere this is simply one step in the process and no, IP98, we do not second-guess the outcomes. However the real issue here is that the update is frankly appalling: you are told that it is going private three times using different formulations of words and there are other instances of similar redundancy. If the claim is that this is notable there should be no problem getting a well-rounded update together that does not need to repeat itself to get to the minimum update measure. ﬥ (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
That's a load of hooey. The update is fine and has quite minimal redundancy. I still think now is the time to post, as well. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ks0stm. We had an edit conflict, I'm still going to say my piece :
ﬥ You're not convinced that one of the largest cash buyouts in history, of a major industry player, by the original company founder, is not notable? I don't see how we're told it's going private "three times using different formulations of words". Is "The $24.4 billion buyout" somehow redundant? It's not needed to lead into "is the largest leveraged buyout backed by private equity since the 2007 financial crisis."?? (which by the way helps to establish notability). How, ﬥ would you word it? Better yet, fix the article if it's inadequate! --IP98 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of the adduced arguments puts weight on the story. The largest leveraged buyout since July 2007 and the 11th largest on record are simply not enough in time and size to conclude any outstanding importance beyond it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To start with the deal is not final, until it is completed we should not post it. Even when it is completed unless it can tick a box that shows it is a notable first or largest then it should not be posted, from what I can see it is only the 11th largest such deal and for a company that is only third in its field. LightGreenAppletalk to me07:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose business minutiae, lacking any notable "firsts." I also object to the business-press phrasing ("going private"), which doesn't read well over all English dialects and doesn't mean anything to someone unfamiliar with such phrasing. 128.214.198.120 (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn (unless someone else wants to take over this). I'm sorry, but (and I mean this with the utmost respect) y'all can go [insert your choice of action here]. Personally, I feel like I need to go pet some kittens or eat a nice dinner or something to boost my morale. I don't know since when ITN has become such a cesspool of rejection, but it seems like any time I come around here lately the timer is red because we can't get consensus to post a goddamn story often enough. I also note how amazingly sad that is since blurbs are ridiculously cheap. They're one line of text in a template that goes on the main page. You would think we could agree on one to add every 24 hours or so, but evidently not. It didn't used to be that way...ITN nominations didn't used to have to have 25,407 deaths, a new prime minister and a world champion to be posted, and the way this nomination has gone doesn't make me feel very confident that it's going to get rectified any time soon. Don't count on me returning to ITN for quite a while, or at least until I get my morale back up to the point where I don't feel like I could nominate a plane crash with 200+ deaths and somehow manage for it to not be posted. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely sympathize with the frustration when you put a lot of work into a valid nomination. But there has been a strong tendency to commercial deals and roll-outs, so I can't say I am surprised at the attitude. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we could post the buyout when it occurs later if we don't get consensus for the annoucement. I'm happy either way. --LukeSurltc16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the announcement, but support the buyout when it occurs; we don't post enough business news, and this will be an excellent story when it comes to pass. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply the thing is, there won't be a big news item when it's complete. The announcement is the big item. Now the wheels will grind, money will flow, probably for some months shares will be bought back. The stock will be delisted. Im totally over it at this point, but this would have been the right time to post. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support reading through every single oppose above atleast 2 dont even have a reason. one is for the update which i think isnt the concern here since it has a good para but maybe it can be worked on if we get more of a consensus. The others about notability dont really state why its not notable but just say its not a "first". we dont only post firsts so i dont know how valid of argument that is. In reality its a pretty big news in the business world and of wide interest. If ever we had to differentiate between poll vs consensus based discussion then this will be it. Its not like we are posting 2-3 items a day that we can afford to slow ITN down even more... (yes i know we need consensus no need to state that but when some people always oppose that becomes harder and harder) -- Ashish-g5523:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull immediately Not that it didn't receive any support, but there is simply no consensus towards posting. I have never seen an admin posting a story with this balance of votes. Pretty strange!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There was plenty of support, two of the opposes were "Not interested" and "so what", like it or not, there was consensus to post. A few vocal opposes can't outweigh the supports, I know this, I vhemently oppose football noms which get posted anyway. --IP98 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness no, we can't possibly have an item on the main page that might cause people to learn something they didn't already know. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE MUST PROTECT WIKIPEDIA FROM THIS SCOURGE. --Jayron3215:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(to Jayron32) That's not the issue(and it's only part of the purpose of ITN). The issue is the fact that there was no consensus to post this. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I may disregard my comment above and ask a question...who cares? What harm is it doing sitting on the main page? The wiki isn't going to explode, it's not the end of the world, it's just sitting there...a line of text on the main page that might just actually be informative to some of our readers. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOHARM is not enough of a reason to post it (which I agree, it probably shouldn't have been), but in my opinion it is enough of a reason to leave it there. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)15:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus shouldn't just be ignored just because something squeaked by it, otherwise there is no point to these discussions. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to ignore 3 of the opposes. "So what", Sun Creator. "Not Interested" WaltCip. "business minutiae, lacking any notable" Anon IP. --IP98 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two more, from Kiril Simeonovski and LightGreenApple amounted to "not big enough". I believe that their statements are valid, but since we don't heave a "minumum deaths" or "maximum size of earthquake", we don't have a "minimum business merger" either. --IP98 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all we do here. You could almost have a redirect from WP:PASSIVEAGRESSIVE to WP:ITNC. I don't mean the individuals as a whole make invalid opinions, but in this particular case, yes, I'm challenging their validity. The first two based on the PDN #1, and the other two based on precedent. How is that dangerous? --IP98 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referred to AN/I This is outrageous. There is a clear majority against posting, backed up even by the nominator of the story. Arguments for posting are not compelling in that the essential points to come up at discussion are:
Show me a sourcve where Dell state what it is claimed they have stated. On the contrary, I see statements where they specifically state they are leaving the door open to other offers and indeed I have linked to such previously. You were also certain that this would be passed by the shareholders and forget about the usual concerns over crystal balling. Why then are growing numbers of shareholders lining up in opposition to the bid?[12] This was wrong when it was posted, it's still wrong now, and it is looking less that the what we are reporting as fact now will ever come to pass. ﬥ (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against posting:
1997 is recent
Only the 11th biggest on record so not groundbreaking in any way
Narrowly drawn category to boost notability - hell, Virgin Media was subject to a similar sized offer 24 hours later, but somehow that is less noptable because it was financed differently.
It hasn't happened yet and as such the blurb is factually incorrect.
The blurb reads "Dell announces it will go private in a $24.4 billion leveraged buyout.". There is nothing factually incorrect about that statement. The announcement is made, we posted the announcement. Therefore this "oppose" rationale is in fact factually incorrect. --IP98 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pro posting camp are forecasting the future and coming to different conclusions to professional observers. We're all reassured that IP98 is not expecting opposition but it is enough of a possibility that time has explicitly been set aside by those in a position to do something about it so that rival offers can be made:[13]. ﬥ (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments against the AN/I have been posted there. Here I would like to point out that WP:NOHARM is an essay, not policy, and that it was written for deletion dissicussions. ITN serves to aid the main page, which ultimately exists to further the goals of the encylopedia. Ultimately, has the posting of this item, replacing a news story from 31 January, made the Main Page better or worse? Unless you believe that this posting has significantly worsened the main page this post-posting discussion does nothing but stir up bad blood. --LukeSurltc17:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may not damage or harm the main page, but this page has very little meaning if things are going to get posted regardless of what goes on here. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement "but this page has very little meaning if things are going to get posted regardless of what goes on here" is a bit of a stretch in this case. It was a 50/50 !vote, with some very questionable opposes. The article is fine, and the admin made a judgement call. If the monopoly nom got posted then maybe we could say there is a problem, but not with this. --IP98 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may not find the supports compelling, but someone certainly did. Feel free to submit a nomination at WP:RFA if you feel like you can do a better job. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Others have already said what needed to be said. The first two opposes weren't considered as they provided no reasons. From the rest of the discussion, while it was certainly not unanimous, I felt there was generally an overarching opinion that the story about Dell going private was notable enough to be inclusion on ITN. It was just muddled by the issue of whether to post it now or later. I have no idea whether the conclusion of the buyout would be another major story, but I could easily see the counterpoints provided by those who supported the item suggesting that this will be a long, drawn-out process with no definitive point where another significant news story would occur. I generally don't believe in the "this is the type of items ITN posts, and this is the type of items we don't post", and so when there is consensus about the notability of the item, but plans for posting at a moment that is uncertain to actually occur, I tend to lean on the side of posting. And, that's what I did. This is ITN, not RfB; we do not need the vast majority of people to consider a story important for it to have sufficient consensus for posting. -- tariqabjotu18:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I oppose this item, I respect any decision that an admin makes on this. It's not easy weight many factors like slow amount of news, so no complaints from me. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)01:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I had nominated a statement by the Japanese PM and was rejected because it wasn't an action. It's now an action. -- Kotjap (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose this until weapons are fired, there are casualties, or physical damage to a ship. Reading the source given, this also happened to a helicopter on January 19th. Neither that event or this one has been widely reported, from what I can see. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The small incidents occurring in the sticky really aren't individually notable enough to be posted as separate items. I think a "wait and see" approach is best right now. SpencerT♦C21:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is standard international jockeying. This spat will have to reach at least the engaged seriousness of the Cod Wars before I'm prepared to back it for ITN, and even then, it would depend on the circumstances. I'd encourage kotjap to stop nominating every incident related to the Islands for ITN, and to practice bringing a nomination on an unrelated topic. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_02_(cropped).jpg)
