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).
Two days ahead of the Irish children's referendum, the Supreme Court—ruling against the government's distribution of information on the referendum—finds the government has breached the 1995 McKenna judgement requiring that referendums be explained to the public in an unbiased manner. The referendum's website is immediately taken down. (Irish Independent)
U.S. PresidentBarack Obama announces his intention to visit Burma later this month, which would make him the first U.S. President to visit the country. (BBC)
Oppose - As this planet is several times the mass of the earth, and is likely to have a highly eccentric orbit around a star that is not a lot like the Sun, I'm not sure this is as notable as it at first appears. As mentioned just before Alpha Centauri Bb made the headlines, exoplanet discoveries are coming very rapidly at present, so we have to set the bar pretty high. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Okay, clearly the last nomination did not go well because there was a lot of people who opposed who did not either know key facts or did not realize the magnitude of LGBT rights wins in the US on election day. Additionally, some other pieces related to LGBT rights weren't nominated - which I am doing so now.
Firstly, these are HISTORIC wins - this is the FIRST time in both US and WORLD history that SSM has been enacted by VOTERS. Secondly, these wins were sweeping - 4 of 4 up for a vote. Also the first openly gay female US Senator was elected (historic!), and additionally an Iowa Justice (David Wiggins) who was part of the unanimous opinion in the Iowa Supreme Court which made gay marriage legal in Iowa was retained by voters (a COMPLETE and HUGE reversal of Iowans' previous vote to oust justices in 2012 - there was a TEN PERCENTAGE POINT or so shift!). All these put together are huge, are being widely reported in the MEDIA (remember this is IN THE NEWS - so as long as it is widely reported and notable, it should be posted).
Also, some replies to opposing points explaining the facts:
"3/50 US states just legalised SSM" - other states have SSM legal, so it is NOT 3/50, and these were the ONLY ones in which there were votes, so what do you expect?
"Meh ... them and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Along with 30 or 40 odd states that allow same-sex unions" & "Not the first states to do this and likely not the last." - FIRST TIME BY *VOTERS*, and no 30 or 40 odd states DON'T have same-sex unions!
"I cannot realize a notability in the legalization of same-sex marriages in federal units of a country. Maybe it's worth supporting if the legalization was done in the United States, but in three of 50 states it's far from being something important." - the United States DOES NOT work that way, STATES are in control of marriage laws, the US Congress CANNOT legalize SSM across the United States. And again, only these were up for a vote, and ALL of them were swept up by LGBT rights advocates.
Well, since you did such an eloquent job of preempting some of the potential opposes, I'll simply oppose because it's not notable. That's always a safe one to fall back on.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to have shown evidence for your assertion - if these are being hugely reported in the media worldwide, then how are they in any way not notable? --Grotekennis (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in Minnesota it was a little different from the other 3 states (In MN, an *anti*-SSM amendment was rejected), but the blurb still encompasses that with the generic 'result in victories for LGBT rights advocates'. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since the gay marrage votes are being discussed separately I'll concentrate on the other two additions you suggest - both of which I very strongly oppose. Mainly for far too much hyperbole and CAPITAL LETTERS in the description you wrote. Believe me, if you write a description about how IMPORTANT and HISTORIC something is, that is NOT going to win over people to your side.
Anyway; on the topic of notability - this means nothing outside the United States and whilst the gay marriage votes do have at least a little external interest your additions go straight from just US interest to US-centralism. Why is the first gay US senator more important than the first gay British MP or first black Member of the German Bundestag or the first atheist member of the US Congress any other similar random 'milestone'? From what I know there are 100 senators and in this day and age I would expect none of them being gay would be more unusual, and I'm sure there were plenty that specific things could be picked out about. I recall hearing that the first Buddhist senator and Hindu congresswoman were elected too, do they deserve a place in the news? It's also worth pointing out that your claim of 'being hugely reported in the media worldwide' is far, far overstating it. The facts were most likely mentioned as trivial results to come out of the US election but really are not what the world deems as the important result. I mean I can go to BBC News's US&Canada page, there is a sub-sub-heading about "States approve same-sex marriage" and nothing on the specific people you talk about. In one article the election of the first openly gay senator is mentioned just as a side point, alongside similar trivia like the highest number of women ever.
The thing that annoys me most is your claims on an Iowa Justice a COMPLETE and HUGE reversal of Iowans' previous vote to oust justices in 2012 - there was a TEN PERCENTAGE POINT or so shift! - that is the height of local politics and totally irrelevant to anyone else. If I said that one of the constituencies in the United Kingdom has a HUGE, HISTORIC change from the Conservative Party to Labour by 15% in the next election, perhaps one that had never had a Labour MP before etc... you might see just how irrelevant it is to anyone outside the affected area. I mean come on, David Wiggins doesn't even have an article, he hasn't even been elected but re-elected, there is no way that specific elections results like his fulfils the criteria to be in ITN.--23230talk14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (after ec) - The 3/50 objection certainly still applies. If these were the first three states to legalise equal marriage, that would be more notable; but they aren't. As an LGBT person myself, I feel that this nomination is far too pointy, consisting far too much of a rant against people who opposed the previous (still-open) nomination. And frankly, the piecemeal way that the US handles this sort of legislation is not in itself a good argument to give more prominence to legislation from sub-national bodies. Did we cover the Scotland-only ban on smoking in public enclosed places? Did we cover the Baden-Württemberg headscarf ban? Do we ever cover local politics from Yakutia, the largest sub-national entity in the world? No amount of angry, shouty capital letters will ever make local legislation into international news. When genuine firsts are achieved by states, that's potentially notable. That's why I suggested including the recreational marijuana initiatives in a round-up of state votes. Simply talking about the election of specific politicians who happen to be LGBT in order to bolster a fairly small, local story seems a bit arbitrary to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voters in the states of Colorado and Washington approve the legalization of recreational use of marijuana in voter ballot initiatives, while the state of Massachusetts approves a referendum legalizing the use of medical marijuana. (CNN)
Voters in the state of California approve a tax increase to fund public schools, community colleges and state universities. (The New York Times)
Nominator's comments: Magnitude and casualties seem to be in line with what we would normally post. Article is progressing, but it's still a bit short. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This appears to be of a wide importance and already reaches media coverage worldwide. I find the article good as well, although it's always better if additionally expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable in its own right (to legalize it and not just not prosecute it) and also because it puts them in conflict with federal law. --RA (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Can we combine the marijuana, equal marriage, and statehood votes into one item? I'd support that, and I'm not sure I can whole-heartedly support any of them separately. (And if we do carry the marriage amendments, in whatever form, please can we call it equal marriage? Many thanks.) AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call it homosexual marriage and you'll be accurately describing the only thing about it that's different from marriage.
Would probably best to merge them into one bullet (if both are to be posted) rather than give them each their own, on top of the Obama reelection blurb. We already get enough cries of "AMERICAN BIAS!!!!" on this page, so condensing can be a good thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per the same reason as for the same-sex marriages. The adoption of such laws in federal units of a country bears no notability at all. It would have been ITN worthy if a country like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or France has legalized marijuana. Furthermore, two of 50 states is completely a niche percentage. What about the other 48 or at least 24 more to surpass a half?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Support For the exact reason Simeonovski mistakenly opposes. The US is a federation of sovereign states, and this is a first in what will be a going trend. Immediately raises the constitutionality of federal laws on the issue. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "this is a first in what will be a going trend" seems to be wrongly placed here. I wonder if it's possible to have your power to predict what will happen in the future. Please come again when the trend will end with the adoption on a country's level or the laws will attain legalization in more than a half of the states and then you have my support guaranteed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't agree with the above argument that states do not count while countries do, that's nation-state biased. In federal systems states have high levels of legislative autonomy and here we talk about two states with a combined population of 12 million. That's more than the population of most countries, so don't see why state-level democracy would need to be ignored. Is particularly inconsistent with the other ITN phenomena of often considering accidents resulting in 10+ deaths newsworthy. --ELEKHHT22:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Calculating 2 out of 50 gives 4%, but 12 million out of 314 million doesn't change it either. Even if the level of autonomy of the states in the US is on a higher level (agree on it), it doesn't show that the news really does implications and many groups are aware of it. The comparison with some other countries with less population is completely off, because they usually earn much more international attention when legalizing such things. We cannot base our conclusions on population figures that don't coincide with the factual acceptance of the news worldwide. Should we, then, post each law approved by a single state in India, only because its population is much greater than the population of some sovereign countries? Claiming that the federal subjects in the United States are of large importance than those in other countries is not indented as an argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the number of people affected by a news event is relevant though. Scanning the news, I see it is being reported world-wide. --ELEKHHT22:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reported by some of the largest media, but not specifically as a news that stands in front with the others breaking news of the day. But still no echo in the media in my country and the countries similar to mine, as it would have been the case if it happened in Belgium (10 million), Denmark (5.5 million) or anywhere else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only breaking news which qualifies than definitely art and culture would never make it. I would have hoped our inclusion criteria is more sophisticated than that. --ELEKHHT23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're somehow right. But the art and culture news that are usually posted are breaking on the their specific portals ("Learning", "Science", "Art", "Travel" or whatsoever they're called). The news about the legalization of marijuana and the same-sex marriages are breaking news nowhere. If you really think that we need a more sophisticated model in the ITN, then you're encouraged to discuss it anywhere on the talk pages. It's pretty strange that ITN/R includes general elections in sovereign countries, rather than in states with much more population than some territories that claimed sovereignty.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that some of the opposers don't have a grasp of the significance of laws like these taking place in only a few states. It would still have been support-worthy if only one state did this. This involves a clash between federal and state laws. Police in those states won't arrest you for it, but the DEA will. These laws are going to have significant legal implications that set huge precedents. RyanVesey22:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huge precedents like federal laws trumping states' rights? As the below IP points out, it happens constantly in the United States. The Framers expected it, for Heaven's sakes. It's not like there's going to be a civil war or anything.--WaltCip (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Zaalbar, Kiril ect. And claiming it is notable because it creates clashing laws between the Fed and State is nothing new, there are many many many laws that are created every year that clash with federal/state law.75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is HUGE news - it is the first time in both US and World history that same-sex marriage has been enacted at the ballot box instead of through legislatures and judicial rulings. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't read the stories on this, but if it is accurate that this is the first time in world history that the public has voted in favour of SSM directly, rather than having it legalized through acts of parliament or the courts, then I would agree that is big news. And the big news is the vote, therefore I would modify the blurb to note that. Resolute14:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We had been 0-for-32 in the US on gay marriage votes, until we broke the shutout last night. Also, we could expand the gay rights focus of this post by noting that Tammy Baldwin, when sworn in, will become the first openly gay member of the US Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN will simply become the US election ticker--which might be a better solution. But three state referenda are just not importnat enough compared to the other news. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; if there were 5 US states instead of 50, then it would be support. Think about it, 3/50 US states just legalised SSM. That's not notable enough to be front page material. Zaalbar (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not the first states to do this and likely not the last. This pales in comparison to yesterday's vote to legalize recreational marijuana in Washington and Colorado. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is the first time it's happened by voter initiative. At least in the US, if it has happened by voter initiative in other countries, someone please tell me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meh ... them and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Along with 30 or 40 odd states that allow same-sex unions. --RA (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I cannot realize a notability in the legalization of same-sex marriages in federal units of a country. Maybe it's worth supporting if the legalization was done in the United States, but in three of 50 states it's far from being something important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In federal systems states have high levels of legislative autonomy and this item concerns three states with a combined population of 14 million. That's more than the population of most countries (including Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden of those mentioned above) so don't see why the rights of 14 million would have to be ignored, while a country with a smaller population would qualify only because is called a "country". --ELEKHHT22:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody imposes the statement that a "country" qualifies better than a "state", since it's been proven many times and stands as something which is self-evident. Please check the archives of the largest media portals to compare how many news similar to this one about "countries" with less population have circulated in contrast to those about a "state". Basically, the ITN should document news stories from the articles, and not to deal with demographics or any other statistical conclusions. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that 3/5 states would form a majority in that country and it would be more notable, as opposed to a very small proportion (3/50 states) of the US. Zaalbar (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while the popular vote success is new, the states are only the last in a series of states that legalized SSM. If the whole country legalized it, that would be another matter, but this is too local. Hekerui (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking this is being overshadowed in the U.S. by the presidential election and in Puerto Rico by the gubernatorial election today and tomorrow, but it's going to be a big developing story. Obviously a success for pro-statehood on a status question after, what, three referendums previously that they failed to win? Is a big deal. Especially considering the implications of the vote. This would be the first major territorial change in the United States since the 1950s. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't know this vote was happening and the result is a big change in position. On reading about it now, Obama (and Romney) said they would support ascension. However, it requires the approval of Congress. Very interesting, and very significant, but I'm not sure if this is the time to post or if/when Congress approves. On the other hand, that could be years away. --RA (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the United States is arguably one the most powerful nations in the world at the moment, major sudden changes to its demographic as such should be posted as it may have implications on the many countries that have extensive relations with it hence the impact is not limited to the region. YuMaNuMaContrib12:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the preference has been expressed. If this results in actual changes, it qualifies for another ITN post. But curiously, this was completely overshadowed by the Other election. --Tone12:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until its official dissolution in its current status and the adoption of the statehood. We posted similar changes in the administrative division of the Netherlands in late 2010, when the Netherlands Antilles were dissolved and given different constitutional status. Indeed, the final approval should be voted in the U.S. Congress.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify/Weak Oppose? It's a nonbinding resolution. What's the next step here regarding Puerto Rican statehood? Does it go to the PR legislature? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it shouldn't make it to the front page twice; one for the referendum and another as making it/not making it as the US state. Maybe if it becomes a US state, but not at the moment. Zaalbar (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of things go on the main page twice, a topical and logical comparison would be the election and inauguration of the US president; up once for the fact the people decided on an outcome, up again for when it actually comes into effect. And the gap between now and there actually being a 51st state may be a year or more. Another comparison could be Scotland - if there was a successful vote for independence both the result of the vote and the actual taking place of the independence would be newsworthy (and would almost certainly be years apart - Scotland might vote yes in 2014 but it would probably be at least 2016 before it came into effect). --23230talk19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's notable enough to go up twice. Scotland's referendum is notable enough because it is already a country and it would become a completely independent country (new member of the UN, etc). Whereas Puerto Rico is already a territory in the US, would just become another one of many many states and it is very small. Zaalbar (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A key difference is that Scotland's referendum will be binding. We decided not to post the recent agreement-in-principle between the British and Scottish government precisely because it wasn't the final, binding plebiscite. As and when that's held, it'll be ITN for sure; South Sudan got it, for similar reasons. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and support. I added a couple sentences to the results section, although my grammar could use a double check. Good to go? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we did the hook now, we'd have to say that "Major news organizations declare the election in favor of Barack Obama". Is elected is still a bit presumptuous. In addition, if it does turn out that there is a disparity between electoral and popular votes, that should be mentioned in the hook. RyanVesey04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for presidential election at least. House/Senate elections could possibly wait until we know more. Canuck89 (what's up?) 04:32, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
Wait until Romney concedes. It's not official until Romney concedes. If for some reason the concession takes time, we can post a blurb similar to what I mentioned. RyanVesey04:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support putting up a hook now that mentions that news organizations declared that Obama won. I don't think we should wait too long to have anything up. We should be more slow in putting a hook up that says Obama won. There's a difference between Wikipedia declaring the election and Wikipedia saying others declared it. RyanVesey05:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether we really need to post that news organizations called the election. Just wait for the election to end, we're not in a race like the media. This is an encyclopedia. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All speculation at this stage. Wait until all the votes are counted, until the actual results are known, until it is certain beyond all doubt, just like with every single other election.
There is no need to wait because any of the decided battleground states are worth less than the amount Obama is over the 270 threshold. 05:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Good to go Per CBS, Romney has called Obama to concede, is taking the stage to make the concession speech in ten minutes per Fox News. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional elections have also been decided (Democrats won the Senate and the Republicans won the House). The Senate election article had updated stats, while the House election doesn't, and both don't have prose updates. –HTD13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Minister of SpainMariano Rajoy criticises Catalonia's drive for independence on radio, claiming its such an attempt "goes against history, goes against the sign of the times, and goes against simple common sense". (Al Jazeera)
At least five people are reported shot at a workplace (Apple Valley Farms, a poultry and meat processing plant with about 50 employees) in central Fresno, California, according to the Fresno Bee newspaper. Initial reports have said that the gunman then shot himself nearby. (MSN)[permanent dead link]
Barack Obama is projected to defeat his Republican opponent Mitt Romney in the electoral college vote and win re-election as President of the United States, after having won the crucial swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Florida remains too close to call. (CNN)
The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico votes to become a U.S. state. If previous procedure is followed, Congress will now request that Puerto Rico establish a state constitution. Then, Congress would vote to approve it as a state, which it usually does. However, Congress is not obligated to follow this procedure, and by its vote, it ultimately must decide, which is not yet certain. Obama and Romney had both pledged to support the result of the referendum and to work with Congress on the issue. (BBC)
British Conservative Party MP Nadine Dorries is suspended from the party after her decision to become the first serving politician to appear on a reality television series. The move could take her away from Parliamentary business for up to a month. (BBC)
Comment on blurb This looks like a good nom to me, but technically the "seen" part happened in Dec 2010, when the specimens were found. Perhaps "Researchers identify two specimens of a never-before described whale species"? Or some such? I'm always shaky on how to word these bio blurbs. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this formulation makes sense. And it's a good natural history story. Ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone15:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references are weak and the article is really short, comparing with other ITN obituaries. Otherwise, support, in principle. --Tone10:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for recent deaths when adequately updated (and preferably expanded in general) and necessary references are added. --RJFF (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for recent deaths when adequately updated. One sentence is not sufficient. We usually require one paragraph. --RJFF (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ten hits a day on average, under 120 after death announced, collected works below 20,000 rank at Amazon, not notable enough even for recent deaths. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In his field (modern classical music) he is very important and influential and a real household name. Amazon rankings aren't everything (please note that amazon is a commercial platform, while Wikipedia isn't) --RJFF (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No idea where Medeis is getting his ten hits a day from: August-October total is 15778, at a daily average of 171.5. Made BBC radio news this morning: more notable than those who have previously been in deaths ticker supportKevin McE (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Bad Yes, I must have searched check views with another spelling of Elliott. But the Amazon numbers still stand, certainly not the top of his field, the book about him ranks at 1,390,000--interest in his rather unpopular music is limited to fanboys. Sorry. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2012 (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.
Nominator's comments: Listed on ITN/R. I'll try to also add a bit more to the articles on the horse and the jockey, which are currently stubs. – IgnorantArmies – 05:33, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
I've raised the prose size of the article to 3965 B, which compares favorably with the prose size of "2012 Kentucky Derby" (3686 B). I think the content in both articles covers the same sort of things, although the Derby article is probably filled out a bit more by the infobox and contents box. IgnorantArmies – 07:20, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
I was worried about "Australia's most prestigious Thoroughbred horse race," as I know for instance that in the US there is dispute over whether its Kentucky Derby or Breeder's Cup Classic, so I don't know if its so accepted as such in Australia. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Election night in USA
OK enough silliness, all of you. This is unproductive. Re-nominate once the results are known (and make sure there's a referenced prose update in the election article). Modest Geniustalk13:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving again, even if for no other reason than to discourage these types of nominations, twenty-four hours before the story actually comes to completion. It's not a race and there are no rewards for nominating an item. As a standard ITN/R item and a globally covered event, there does not need to be a consensus-building exercise ahead of time. This will be posted when the requisite update -- which can't come for several more hours still -- is provided. There is nothing to discuss now. -- tariqabjotu20:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment You know, it's not a race and you don't get a trophy for being the first to nominate this. Was there any doubt it would be posted? Furthermore, it's spelled "president" with two "e"s. --Jayron3204:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well lately there have been absences in ITNR election postings being nominated. (i used to nominate it and now, it seems, they dont get on here)Lihaas (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
more sarcasm People on both sides of the political spectrum are saying they will move to Canada if their guy loses. As a Canadian, I oppose revealing any results of this election so that those people may live in peace without tearing their families from their homes. Please think of the children! Resolute04:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conservatives moving to Canada because the US might become too liberal?! You can't beat logic like that. Also, loving the IP's barnstar :P IgnorantArmies – 06:13, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
Going on past events, that would enable the nominator to open a successful fish and chip shop. IgnorantArmies – 06:32, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, funny little trouts. TROUTS are for disruption, so lets so who's unproductive? Do you then care to keep anyeye an nominate the elections recently that have not made it here? Even after the election, sine you seem to think itll automatically happen when the results are out. case in point, thank you!!!Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This will, of course, be posted when the time is ripe. I'm rather concerned that Lihaas, having rushed to press and been quite reasonably criticised for doing so, is now hatting those threads. One shouldn't be able to suppress criticism of one's own decisions and actions. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Support obviously as this is *ahem* notable, and is very likely to be updated within seconds. Question is, when do we post it? When CNN calls the election? When the FEC officially announces? When the other guy concedes? The three parts (President, House and Senate) are likely to not be known at the same time. Also, should we use the phrases "is re-elected" "retains control of the house/senate"? There's advantages to having a discussion a little bit ahead of time about this, thanks Lihass for filing the necessary "paperwork". LukeSurltc11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the post should go with presidential results up when Obama/Romney officially concedes the race, with the senate and house bits added to the blurb when known. If relevant the phrses "is re-elected" and "retains control.." should be used as they add information for minimal extra words. LukeSurltc11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What concerns me most is that after assuming power in Burma, Switzerland and Panama, X is set to take over the United States as well. When will X be elected Pope? Will he/she succeed Queen Elizabeth II one day? And will there be a stalemate when X in the White House and the Y-majority in Congress fail to cooperate? --RJFF (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unclosed it, because HTD comments built on the productiveness,, it wasnt ALL silly. Heck his comments BUILT on wnat more to addLihaas (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A suicide car bomber detonates a bomb in the Hama province of Syria killing 50 Syrian military personnel. This attack is the largest attack on Bashar al-Assad's forces in the civil war so far. (Reuters)
Five bombs go off in the neighborhoods of Gudaibiya and Adliya in Manama, Bahrain, killing two foreign workers and injuring another. (BBC)
British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron orders a fresh investigation into allegations of sexual abuse involving a senior Conservative politician from the Thatcher era. The allegations concern sexual abuse at children's homes in Wales during the 1970s and 1980s. (BBC)
Syrian opposition groups hold a meeting in Doha, Qatar, to discuss reforming the structure of the group, a few days after a War Crime investigation commenced at the UN. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: This is the most important tournament (in Women's Tennis) between national teams. The tournament is equivalent to the Davis Cup in Men's Tennis. Andise1 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not seeing the significance or coverage. "Equivalent to the Davis Cup" is irrelevant as I'm pretty sure the Davis Cup doesn't usually get posted (it's not ITN:R). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.124.2 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tournament in Japan, run by an English organization, sponsored by a French bank and won by a Czech team and there's a complaint that the sources are all American. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support international tournament for teams' in tennis. This is the only one for women and really ought to be the same level as Davis (perhaps more)Lihaas (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We posted the death of his predecessor in March: Church of 12-18 million members. Coronation is in 2 weeks, but I would suggest posting now, per our treatment of political leaders (posting election rather than installation) --Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Late support, it is certainly notable and interesting due to the recent conditions in Egypt among the other significant points.Egeymi (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
while i would support it too, only 3 hours for a non-ITNR nom? (although it should probs be ITNR)
Also, can the blurb include the fact that he replaces the deceased Shendoura?
Did anyone actually see the article? Did the admin? There is not even 1 sentence on the update of him becoming a pope. Please PULL this asap.Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. If I am understanding it correctly, the last two sections of the article are about it, although they don't have enough references to meet update requirements. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose you mean "Pope and Patriarch". which could be right but its Crystal ball-ing and without ANY cite. "Canonicity of Concecration as Bishop of Alexandria" is vague and doesnt mention him becoming pope...again specultion. Perhaps like the Holy See election something of his choosing and eactions should do it.
updaye ive gone ahead and added some, check it out and see if its suitable. However, someone should find 1 or 2 more sourcesLihaas (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of thing is routine. At least where I live some 90% (iirc) of excavations are where there will be a construction site. So it's dig, document, get loose objects, until a set time when construction goes. You can see from the dates (mining company got the site in 2007, acheologists started in 2009) that the same thing is going on at Mes Aynak. Narayanese (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Source is an editorial opinion piece dated 24 September. ITN is not a vehicle for publicising campaigns, no matter how worthy. Our article suggests that the situation is not deemed nearly as drastic as the article cited in the proposal, and refers to a June conference that is ignored in that article. Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose National championship in a nation that is not the principle country playing the game. Was added to ITN/R with no discussion, therefore no established consensus, therefore principle of consensus for sufficient importance has not been pre-established. Was not on ITN in 2010 or 2011. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the World Series anything other than a "National championship"? And what makes a country the "principle country" of a sport? --TorsodogTalk18:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I'm honestly asking. I read my comment again and wanted to make sure it didn't come off that way. I just don't understand why we wouldn't add this to a blurb starting with "In baseball..." Why not add the second most important baseball championship to the blurb to give a more international view of the sport? --TorsodogTalk18:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Major League Baseball is clearly the most premier baseball league in the world, and players from other countries strive to play there. That is reflected in the international nature of its rosters (esp. with players from Latin America). Many countries have professional baseball leagues (e.g. Division Élite in France), but I don't think any of them would argue they're on the same caliber as MLB in the U.S. That being said, Nippon Professional Baseball in Japan is probably the second most prestigious baseball league in the world, even if its players aren't as international. -- tariqabjotu18:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with this, for the record. I just think that if both events take place at the same time each year, why NOT mention both? --TorsodogTalk18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the Japan Series blurb was always combined with the World Series blurb; when it (World Series) is pushed off, it goes along with it. As for being international, what has that got to do with the fact that the likes of the AFL Grand Final and the Super Bowl passed when those have to be the most insular of leagues?
Also, aren't Japan the defending WBC champs? Japanese baseball has to be more followed than American baseball nowadays, right? The series-clinching crowd at the Tokyo Dome is quite higher than the 2011 Emperor's Cup#Final (both featured Tokyo teams), and even higher than the World Series. That should make them a "principal country," along with the U.S. and Cuba and even the Dominican Republic. –HTD19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion to add the Japan Series to ITNR, on ITN/C. At the time is was considered normal to add a recurring sports event to ITNR if it passed consensus on ITN/C and there was no objection. That's what happened IIRC. Several ITNR events haven't been posted regularly in recent years, including a lot of the rugby stuff, so if the Japan series wasn't posted for 1-2 years that's no reason to not post now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was just answering Torsodog's question. I have no opinion about whether this should be posted. But we have to recognize that not all national baseball leagues (or sports leagues) are created equal. Whether we draw the line above or below NBP is a matter of opinion. -- tariqabjotu20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no need to bump up the US final, and without that, the Japanese final by itself is not notable enough to deserve an ITN entry. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing a bump of the original blurb. I'm just proposing adding this to the blurb until it is bumped. Unfortunately the World Series sweep messed up the timing this year. --TorsodogTalk19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support a stand alone entry. This is the top level championship of one of the most popular sports in Japan and one of the highest calibre leagues in the sport. And, frankly, a counter to systemic bias. Resolute19:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support' just the Japanese final. We post the English Premier League, and there's no indication that's "higher" than the Bundesliga, Serie A or La Liga (which we probably do or could post). This seems the same situation. I don't see the point of bundling it with the American final though, leave that as a separate entry as they're two different leagues. GRAPPLEX19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's ITNR, and should be. We don't have a lot of baseball on ITN. We feature very little sport from Asia and this is clearly a major tournament worthy of mention. It's the number one sports event in Japan, a country of 120 million. We feature the Grey Cup championship of Canadian football (American football with a few rules differences) so I don't see why we can't feature the second most important baseball tournament as well. This isn't some minor unnotable sports event. On what basis exactly is anyone saying that the Japan series isn't notable enough on its own, btw?--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Separate Blurbs 2nd most notable baseball championship behind the World Series, definitely should be posted. However, not as a combined blurb. This isn't like posting the combined mens and womens results of Wimbledon, where it's the same tournament. They're separate, unrelated events, and should be treated as such. They are both notable enough to receive their own blurb. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and endorse readiness- Japan is better at baseball than the US, so this is at least as notable as the World Series. Japan won the most recent world championship and even the Little League World Series, where the US gets half the teams because they host it. Should be posted as a separate blurb, because no need to extend the time World Series spends on the main page. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canada and Australia launch women's literary prizes. (The Guardian)
The estate of William Faulkner sues over the use of the writer's quote "we must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it" in an advertisement by American global aerospace and defense technology company Northrop Grumman Corporation. (The Guardian)
Lirak Bejko, the Albanian former political prisoner who set himself on fire in protest at delays in government compensation for communist-era dissidents, is dead. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This could be posted as a simple update to the existing blurb on Sandy or as a full blurb on its own. I've provided blurb suggestions for both ways above. I have no opinion on which way it should be handled. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this gets posted, the blurb should not be updated in the manner suggested. Reread that; it sounds very insensitive. -- tariqabjotu05:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cancellation of a event with otherwise minimal impact is not news. It would have been different if, for example, it forced an emergency change in the US Election dates, but the fact the race isn't being run isn't that. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although several marathons are listed at ITN/R, they have very rarely actually been posted (those who know my opinion of ITN/R will realise what conclusions I would wish to draw about the relevance of ITN/R, but that is another issue.) Among the effects of Sandy, this is of negligible importance: emphasising this above loss of life, livelihood, dwelling and possessions, seems crass and insensitive. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the exact reason as per Doktorbuk. We usually omit to post cancellations of any kind of events, unless the event is extremely popular and important by itself. The New York Marathon bears decent amount of notability, but it's definitely far from being something that everybody should be aware of.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Damage from the storm is estimated to reach US $50 billion, according to economists, but the impact on the broader U.S. economy is said to be minor. (AFP)
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.
Mild oppose Interest in death has pretty much passed if stats page is to be trusted: 4,500 views on 1 November, 2,000 on 2nd, 650 on 3rd: average views/day in preceding 63 months was 27, which is not a great indicator of interest to readers. Kevin McE (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We posted the inauguration of Shard as the tallest building in Europe earlier this year, so there is no way this is of less importance when it actually tops Shard with a new record height. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to support this, but I have some reservations. Most concerning is this quote from AP: "But competing with European countries for tallest building is playing in the minor leagues. There are nearly 60 buildings in North America, Asia and the Middle East that are taller..." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Bongwarrior stated, becoming the tallest building in Europe is not exactly saying much. There are eight buildings in Dubai alone that are taller than this. The Empire State Building is taller, and it was completed eighty years ago. Given our English-speaking audience and the importance of London, the completion of the Shard received an especially high amount of fanfare (and perhaps wrongly so). It is/was a well-recognized and well-known building among people who follow these types of projects, but, really, that building was more an achievement for London (whose next tallest building was completed twenty years ago) than it was an achievement for Europe. And perhaps in retrospect, it shouldn't have been posted at all. But Moscow has a very healthy skyline, meaning this particular building isn't very notable even in the context of just Moscow itself: another year, another new addition to the city's burgeoning skyline. The next tallest building was completed just two years ago, and the Mercury City Tower is expected to be surpassed next year when/if the Federation Tower complex is completed. -- tariqabjotu01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN shouldn't wait for expectations that are going to happen in the next period, but to document what has recently happened. We'll have to see if there will be another building topping the list completed in 2013. That's not our job and you have a manipulating way to oppose an item. By the logic you have, we should oppose each building completed (even if the tallest in the world), because it's not located in a city of large interest for our readers and because there will be another one taller completed soon.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cite: The next tallest building was completed just two years ago, and the Mercury City Tower is expected to be surpassed next year when/if the Federation Tower complex is completed. and Given our English-speaking audience and the importance of London, the completion of the Shard received an especially high amount of fanfare (and perhaps wrongly so). This is what you've written or not? But still far enough. I don't have much time to lose on discussing your opinion and its interpretation. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- When it comes to skyscrapers, continents mean nothing. Skyscrapers are not spread evenly but focused in skyscraper-focused cities, which are also focused within certain countries. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)-TI[reply]
Oppose As above, this is a story we've seen many times before, but this one just doesn't have the overall notability (or you could say, it doesn't hit the heights, b'dum-tish) doktorbwordsdeeds07:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We posted the opening of London's Shard as the tallest building in Europe, and the comments referring to it as a non-significant record show a clear systematic bias. I cannot believe that contradictory statements are used to oppose it in less than 4 months.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The claim in the blurb is not in the source. The building has not opened - it's only topped out. When the Shard reached this stage, we waited; in fact, we waited until its official unveiling. When this project reaches that stage, I will support its inclusion here. (In fact, the Shard itself is not yet open for business - I pass it on the way to work several times a week - but we agreed on the formal opening ceremony.) I think 'tallest building in Europe' is a sufficiently notable thing to go on the home page. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until later date-This goes per User:Alex Tiefling, a building topping out basically means all external construction has been completed; the internal work however has not been entirely finished. When the unveiling takes place, this has my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this was the tallest in the world, it would be OK, but it doesn't seem noteworthy given there are many buildings taller. I don't think The Shard should have been posted either. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Tallest Building" records are losing their notability, in my opinion. It used to be that building the tallest building was a crowning achievement. Nowadays, they're sprouting up all over the place. One could potentially sprout up somewhere in Europe 5 years from now that beats this one. Unless a building is built that beats the world record by a lot, I wouldn't support any "tallest building" blurbs. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully later Either Mercury Tower hasn't been opened (as the blurb claims) or the article has not been updated. The fact that London's Shard tower was posted as the tallest building in the EU around its opening ceremony, speaks very strongly for posting this. Normally we would post the building once it tops out, but unfortunately this article is not any shape to be put on the front page right now. I hope the article's situation has improved once the building officially opens. --hydrox (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The accident occurred in one of the region's and world's most influential cities, the damage is expansive and extensive, and the death toll in high. --QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Riyadh is unquestionably one of the region's most influential cities. As far as global cites go, Riyadh is not only the capital city of the world's 2nd largest petrol exporter, the country with the second largest proven reserves, and a regional and pan-Arab "heavyweight", but is Saudi Arabia's most exalted city, aside from Mecca, virtually entirely due to its holiness and beatitude. Riyadh has one of the world's most avant-garde structures, two of them really. Its skyline is burgeoning, as are its industries besides the ubiquitous energy. Not to mention, it has been ranked as a "Beta World City", along with other such locales as Berlin, Cairo, Rome, Cape Town, and Rio. Based on this, I believe the denomination of "globally influential city" could be attained. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should have a separate article if it is indeed notable enough, not a (too) large section in the article about the city as it is now. SpencerT♦C06:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. It is a bad accident, and worthy for ITN, but we have no idea of long-term effects per WP:NEVENT and thus may not warrant a separate article. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE-Since I have created an article per Doktorbuk, I have added a third alternative blurb to the deliberation, as well as updated the blurbs to reflect the current death toll. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only oppose is on article quality, and I have added a third paragraph to meet requirements for new article. Also looks like it will survive AfD, so I say this is ready. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD presents an issue though. If there were a clearer idea that this article should exist, I'd just close the AfD and post this to ITN. But that's not the case yet, and appearance on the Main Page is generally supposed to be a reason for speedy keeping an article when it was on the Main Page first. -- tariqabjotu19:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Died on 24 October: already two days older as a story than oldest item in main ITN space. Page vews in September averaged 16/day: minimal interest among our readers. Kevin McE (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
