Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2012

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

USS Iowa (BB61)

 * Strong Oppose- I don't feel that any donation to a museum should ever be posted on ITN. B zw ee bl   (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, as purely administrative. However, I disagree with Bzweebl's proposed hard-and-fast rule. I can imagine that a museum donation could potentially be appropriate for ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and Comment You say that this is "last battleship left anywhere on the face of the earth that isn't in line to be scrapped or sunk", but aren't there other battlerships still in existence that are museum ships already? USS Wisconsin (BB-64) seems to be such an example; USS Missouri (BB-63) is another one... So USS Iowa (BB-61) is simply a further battleship that becomes a museum ship (ok, the last one which isn't already one), and not the last battleship on earth. Khuft (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What he means is that the ships you are referring to have already been donated. Therefore, the only battleship left anywhere on earth that hasn't been donated is the Iowa, and the Iowa was just donated, so its a milestone for this particular type of ship since there are no more battleships to donate for use as museums or memorials, or alternatively, to scrap or sink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.127.216 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but that sounds pretty much unremarkable to me then... Khuft (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

One World Trade Center

 * Oppose- I don't think that we should post this until construction is finished and it is officially opened. Otherwise, the only newsworthy thing that happened was that it became the tallest building in its own city. However, I would like to note that this is indeed a minority topic. That has now been reflected in the nom. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (history aside) what is significant about being the tallest building in a given city ? wait until it opens when it will be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere (assuming that it is when it opens). Mt  king  (edits)  00:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting and significant symbol of an event that changed the modern world forever. Article update is in the construction section and could be expanded. Article is in great shape, however. I feel this is an excellent item for ITN. Jus  da  fax   00:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My reasoning is the same as Bzweebl and Mtking; the building has simply become the tallest in a given city, which isn't much of an achievement. GRAPPLE   X  00:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the comments above. Reconsider when it has reached its final height. Khuft (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would definitely support posting this once it's completed, but until its doors open I don't think it should be posted yet. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I concur w/ Mtking, IF it's the tallest in the Western Hemishpere as the builders purport when it opens then we should include it. Rhodesisland (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Until it's completed, this isn't the tallest building in New York, or anywhere else for that matter. It may be the tallest structure in the city, but it's not the tallest building. Also, calling it the tallest in the Western Hemisphere when completed will need a bit of qualification. Its roof will still be lower than the Sears Willis Tower's; only because on One World Trade Center's ginormous, disproportionate, somewhat architecturally significant spire will it be considered taller than that. That, of course, doesn't mean it won't be significant. It probably should/would go up anyway, simply because it's the new World Trade Center flagship building, no matter how tall it is. --  tariq abjotu  04:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have sympathy with the nomination but ultimately this is a curiosity for DYK or similar. When it's finished, a nomination this way comes. Right now it's significant in a way which does't quite fit ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 04:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The completion of this building will be both culturally and architecturally significant, but that hasn't happened yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - Just curious as to when new buildings are usually posted to ITN: topping out, completion, or open for business? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * New buildings normally are not included on ITN unless they represent some type of record (height, overall space, etc.). We posted the Burj Khalifa twice; once when it surpassed the CN Tower in height and again when it opened (I think). I don't know whether being the tallest building in a single city would be notable enough for ITN. -- Plasma Twa  2  07:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A bit of advice for next time. I would support an ITN posting for when the building opens, because I am in no doubt that the coverage will justify it. But that support would actually be conditional on not mentioning it being the biggest building in New York. My rationale is twofold. One, we would not ordinarily post a blurb for the tallest building in New York, and to do so might create a precident we later regret when we reject similar nominations from other massive cities. Two, to post a blurb with emphasis on the building's height might detract from the fact that the building's opening will be considered ITN-worthy in its own right. —WFC— 13:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with WFC. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt I'll be the person nominating it next time anyway; I imagine I'll leave it to another. But for discussion's sake, even if we were to post similar items each time a new "tallest building" opens in one of the world's, say, 10 largest cities, glancing at the history of NYC, Tokyo, etc., suggests that these records turn over in those cities every 10-20 years or so; 10 items over 15 years would hardly be a flood, and given the minority topic, could actually be helpful. Khazar2 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a very good general point there actually (although I stand by my view in this specific instance, due to how certain I am that the building will be considered notable enough). I don't seek to undermine the principle you suggest, but according to World's largest cities, if we went by top 10 cities by population we would be excluding the likes of Moscow, Beijing, London and Paris. —WFC— 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to define a fixed rule for this? If new tall buildings are opened anywhere, editors are free to suggest here to highlight them at ITN, and the community can decide on a case-by-case basis. I fear we may else be opening a can of worms. Would we only highlight buildings? Why not tall towers (such as the Tokyo Sky Tree and the Canton Tower)? Why not flagpoles (e.g. Baku and Dushanbe have reached new world records last year)? Khuft (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a case-by-case basis is best (and am fine with waiting for the official opening, of course); I'm just making the case that these shouldn't be automatically excluded. A new tallest building in New York or Tokyo to me is interesting geographical/technical news because there have been so few; reviewing this closer, however, it looks like Mumbai's record changed hands seven times in the last few years, making it far less remarkable if it turned over again. I'm less worried about the slippery slope concerns, though; the reason that's generally considered a logical fallacy is that there's nothing we could ever post that someone couldn't respond "but doesn't that mean we need to include every X ever?" A reasonable precedent (a building in a top-10 city, a long-standing record) would still allow us to determine a cut-off point down the road in the unlikely scenario that these articles come to dominate ITN. If the flagpole record has been broken twice in a year, for example, it doesn't seem very newsworthy. In NYC's case, on the other hand, this would only be the third structure since 1931 to surpass the Empire State Building. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Best restaurant in the world

 * Support; this sounds like an interesting topic for ITN, minority+Food/Drink related, yay --Τασουλα (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The top three is the same as last year and only two of the top ten were not in the top ten last year, which sort of means it fails to put the "new" into "news", IMO. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Food and drink is rarely, if ever, posted on ITN, and gastronomy is the most current aspect of that major topic. This story also represents the continued rise of New Nordic cuisine which is a significant newsworthy aspect of it. Also, I updated both articles, so they should both be bold in the blurb. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Support. I like the idea of including a food award in principle, but can someone give a source indicating that this is considered one of the definitive rankings, and not just a ranking? The Guardian article here talks about the winners but very little about the list itself, and the Wikipedia article on the award doesn't have much indication of its significance (besides the impressive number of voters). Khazar2 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an excellent one that I found. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me; !vote changed to support. Khazar2 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This year's win does not seem special and this is an yearly event. I am not supporting or opposing, however if this goes through then it should be added to ITNR. Otherwise i dont see any reason for it to be on ITN this year -- Ashish-g55 00:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This should be posted and should be ITNR. It is generally the only food/drink item that would ever be posted on ITN, so keeping it out seems unfair. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * would Support if the blurb had some mention of the organization making the claim/taking the vote. It was voted best in the world by whom? Rhodesisland (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- It is a minority topic which appears to already have a low level of consensus. Additionally, everything on ITN right now is political, so this would bring a nice change to that. B zw ee bl   (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is the article ready? It's got maybe two sentences about this. --  tariq abjotu  04:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: (1): This is a list published by a private magazine called Restaurant. Are we going to publish the top PC game when PC Gamer comes out with its annual list of top 100 games? Are we going to publish the top holiday location when  publishes its list? (2): The magazine is only about fine dining and this is only a list of luxury restaurants. (3): The magazine's wikipedia article itself says (and backed up by a source) that "The list is reported in the press, but is not universally accepted or considered as definitive". So, I would urge everyone who supported this to reconsider. I'm frankly surprised this has received so much support in the first place. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that it appears in a commercial publication is neither here nor there. ITN covers the Academy Awards, BAFTAs and Grammys who are in effect private trade bodies. The scope of the vote, nearly 6000 industry professionals adds weight to it's importance. FWIW I'd be happy to see a best computer games award on ITN if the judging panel was as robust and wide ranging. Obviously a poll for the best restaurants in the world is going to be concentrated at the higher end of the market, MacDonalds must have been #51. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * voted by who? God almighty dint decree it as the bestv.Lihaas (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Yorkshiresky, you make a fair point that all of these are commercial ventures. But you will have to concede the vast difference in notability between the academies you've mentioned and this magazine. This also sets a precedent for WP:POINT nominations of best this and best that. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, their website says its only 800 experts . Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it's 837 restaurant professionals who nominate 7 restaurants. Still a notable sample.yorkshiresky (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose oppose oppose. 1) "The Best Restaurant in the world", really? Did they sample every single restaurant on planet earth? 2) More importantly, unlike BAFTA and AMPAS which are considered authorities in their field, who is "Restaurant magazine". Their article is a stub... Are we going to post PC Gamer game of the year, Car and Drivers North American car of the year, Time's Person of the Year, Petlover magazine best dog food, or every singe time Nirvana manages to top some arbitrary greatest rock bands of all time list? I'm genuinely stunned that this snowball made it this deep into hell already. Please don't post this item. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did every BAFTA or AMPAS member watch every movie released last year? Because of the scope of the award it's more notable than the publication behind it. Judging by the media coverage in the past 24 hours from hundreds of reputable publications I'd say it is of clearly international interest.yorkshiresky (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose we don't post the Time Person of the Year, which gets more attention. Even the People Magazine's 100 Most Beautiful People and the Maxim Hot 100 get more press than this.   Hot Stop   12:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, here's the link to the rejection of Time Person of the Year in 2010   Hot Stop   12:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the objections being raised here, but the difference for me is the size of the panels involved. Time's Person of the Year is presumably chosen by Time's staff, not a massive international panel of experts; ditto the People and Maxim lists. For me, that puts this is a different class than all the "Our personal Top 100 lists" being compared here. Khazar2 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That certainly adds leaps and bounds more credibility...but as posted below it seems biased to a certain style of cuisine. But if we were to agree to post this (with due caveat that the magazine annointed it) AND the est "asian" then thats fairer. (thugh Latamn and envn African should e there (guess Ethiopian would win as the mmore "fancy/elite" of African resturants.)Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment- To all the people disregarding this because it is only a magazine that is deciding this, this is the equivalent of the Oscars or Grammys for the restaurant industry. This is the premier rankings list decided by experts from around the world, just like any other awards we post.  B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Hot Stop  23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I love your use of hyperbole, but the links you provided don't say anything about the Grammys or Oscars.  Hot Stop  00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * B zw ee bl  (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like the Roy G Biv signature ;) Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm a bit in doubt about it, as it seems to focus on Western style cuisine. Actually, even if you check the reviews of the top Japanese and Singaporean restaurants on the list, it is highlighted that eg. the cook has excelled in fusing Japanese cuisine with Western technique (examples here: Iggys in Singapore; Narisawa in Tokyo). Indeed, for 2013, they even plan to have a separate Top 50 Asian Cuisine list (Asia's Top 50)... I'm not saying this invalidates the list per se - after all, the Oscars are also biased towards American films - but we should be aware that this magazine's experts seem to prefer a certain (Western) style of cooking... Khuft (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This just seems too trivial.  I dont' see any evidence that this award has anywhere near the prestige or the notibility of the Oscars, the Grammies, the Palme d'Or, etc, even if it is arguably the most prestigious restaurant ranking available.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Assam ferry disaster
Strong Support: Major disaster, front page splash and top news in India. I've created a stub and changed references in the nomination to that article. Will pad up the article later today. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Scores dead. If it was in any other country it would be posted immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.162.41 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment due to the stub nature of the article. Support if/when it is expanded.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As updater. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've found us out, we hate Indians. Rest well knowing you cracked the code, noble IP. --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons given by others. I don't think the "stub" label is warranted in view of the article length, number of references, and presence of an image; I'm a bit curious to know why the stub label was added. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - stub templates removed, start class articles cannot be, by definition, stubs. Any chance of naming the vessel involved? Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Article okay, major accident. --hydrox (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready B zw ee bl   (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Koala listed as vulnerable

 * Oppose- This isn't a change for the koala population itself but merely a change to its "official" local status. Doesn't seem like very big news to me. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Population decline is a continuous process, so you wouldn't expect it to appear in the news per se. The status is not local, but national - the Federal Environment minister has classified the koala populations in those 3 states (though not in Victoria or S Australia) as vulnerable. Given that koalas only live in Australia, this basically means that they are considered vulnerable in a major part of their habitat. Khuft (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as trivial. Call me back when I can no longer get a Koala pie.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Khuft raises a good point in rebuttal to Bzweebl, but vulnerable is a long way from endangered. The Koala has a national symbolism and cute factor which is not extended to other vulnerable species. Maybe that's why it's news, and the Yellow-bearded Greenbul isn't. LOL @ Lugnuts. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * comment Koala scare stories come out about once a year. The good news is that there are plenty of koalas in Victoria and South Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[Ready] New branch on tree of life discovered

 * Oppose the article is in rough shape and needs a cleanup. Beyond that, most of what's notable about this is only speculative for now.  Hot Stop   13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This seems to be more like speculation than actual news. Support after cleanup.  B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- Additionally, the article needs serious cleanup. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support after clean-up per the tag on the article. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but the core fact that the organism is genetically distinct from the five existing kingdoms of eukaryote doesn't appear to be speculative, but from a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps what's needed here is just a rewrite on the blurb to something like "Researchers discover that the eukaryote Collodictyon is genetically distinct from the five existing kingdoms of eukaryotes." Khazar2 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You almost have me convinced, but I have another question. Why shouldn't we wait for it to officially become its own kingdom? If that is what is being predicted here, shouldn't we wait for it to actually happen? B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point, but as a non-biologist I'm not sure what "officially" would necessarily mean in this context. Is there a particular body or publication whose recognition would make this 100% official (in the way that Pluto was officially stripped of planet status)? My guess (and only a guess) is that there isn't--that a consensus will gradually emerge that this is indeed a new kingdom, without any formal moment of total recognition. For that reason I feel like this initial publication, in a top journal in the field, is the most surprising and newsworthy moment. Biology's not my strong suit, though (I leave that to my far smarter wife), so I'm happy to be corrected if others disagree. Khazar2 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent explanation! I considered that, but wasn't sure it was true. As you can see, I changed my !vote. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! All this is moot, though, if we can't get some expert cleanup. I've added an additional note requesting cleanup at WikiProject Biology. Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - per Khazar2, whose reasoning convinces me. Jus  da  fax   00:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: Satisfied on notability, not yet on article quality. It has a massive orange tag now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I took off the massive orange tag as the problems are sorted out by correction of information sourced from non-scientific sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The tag has been re-added. (Not by me) --BorgQueen (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone came in to sort out the issues. I'm unsure if that's what happened. Now you'll have to bring your looking glass to discover there might be a significant issue with this topic. __meco (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes User:DrMicro will have to be credited as well for making the writing look more professional and removing the hyperbole. I have added this user. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Support New biological kingdoms aren't described every day. This is of slightly more significance than train crashes or cricket scores. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- There is consensus and the problems with the article have been fixed. B zw ee bl   (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not Ready (I think) the article doesn't seem to say that Collodictyon "may belong to a new kingdom" which is what the blurb says - the organism is listed as being inside the protista kingdom within the infobox in the article. EdwardLane (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Over the years it has been placed in various classifications and Protista is just a grab bag for all those single cell eucaryots. Though I am concerned about the blurb highlighting "a lake in Norway". Although the current story is from researchers who got their specimen from there, Collodictyon is also found in other places in Europe and Asia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the grab bag, but it seems like the blurb and the article still need attention. I'd remove the norway lake section from the blurb I think. And someone who knows more about it should make the article consistant. EdwardLane (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In disagreement with EdwardLane's "not ready", that our article lists the biont as a "protist*" (note the apostrophe) has nothing to do with the fact that a peer-reviewed article has declared the organism to be a eukarote lying outside any known eukaryote kingdom. Indeed, "protista" is just a grab bag term like invertebrate, no longer used seriously by biologists.  Given that no new kingdom name has been provided for this organism, it is okay that our article resorts to an asterisked placeholder.  But we cannot refer to our article as a reference 'showing' that the creature belongs to the defunct protist category.  What matters here is the fact that the gene sequencing claims showing it is a eukaryote outlier are peer reviewed and uncontested.  I only have a bachelor's in Biology, but you can take my opinion as educated in this matter until some higher authority contradicts me. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with removing the reference to Norway. __meco (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bersih 3.0

 * Any opinions? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Mass arrest of protesters is notable. Jus  da  fax   20:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have some more details on what the protests were for? Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so far, only 'various offences'. ... (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- This is typical ITN material. B zw ee bl   (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - though I wonder whether the Blurb could be re-written into sth along the following lines: More than 500 protester are arrested at a rally for free elections in Kuala Lumpur? Khuft (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Although there is a COI tag, the article is backed by solid references and is in a pretty good state. B zw ee bl   (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Egypt closed

 * Comments: The update is still too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was working on it and improved with more information about the background of the event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - That these two major Middle East players are at odds is notable and important. Jus  da  fax   01:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted We seriously need new content. Obviously, if there's a wave of "Pull"s, I'll remove it, but this item seems to tick all the boxes. --  tariq abjotu  04:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good post. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Just created Ahmed al-Gizawi. Please add a link. --bender235 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with posting. International politics is a lasting favorite at ITN. Although consensus seems rather thin at one support, I don't see why not given the recently short supply of candidates, lack of any voiced opposition to this, no problem with the articles and In the news/Last update running red for so long (once again). --hydrox (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral But once again, the timer running red should be of no concern doktorb wordsdeeds 12:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You will understand why we have a timer and why it matters if you have seen the amount of criticism ITN has received for its tendency to stagnate and be "slow". The timer is not there for fancy decorational purposes. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the age old debate continues. Being current vs NOTNEWS. The 24 hour news conflagrator will report celebrity prater, sports trivia, mindless speculation, mundane traffic accidents, and the most insignificant political hiccup in any country deemed undesirable to the "enlightened west". My opinion is to think of ITN as a way to filter out the noise, and try to zero in on stories which are actually significant. In this case Tariq boldly promoted a number of noms which had decent updates, even though some seem a bit trivial. Climbs off soap box. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The bolded section in the blurb should direct to the correspondent subtitle in the article instead of the main title.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Romanian leadership change

 * Oppose Could, maybe, perhaps, what if? It's not enough until there is something on which to hang the event, and I can't see that here. Not notable as yet. Lihaas, I have tried to proof-read your nomination. Can you please install a spell checker or press preview before editing? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant on its own accord -- perhaps if there are further developments. --—  Tyrannus  Mundi  15:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Josep Guardiola
--86.62.65.107 (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Not going to happen, learn more about what ITN is before nominating please. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm unclosing this. Unilaterally closing this is highly premature.  There's nothing in ITN criteria that prohibit this event (how would IP 'learn' that this nomination was inappropriate?).  Feel free to oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not an important enough story by anyone's measure doktorb wordsdeeds 12:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No indication of notability -- if this were posted we'd need to keep tabs on all the other major clubs too. Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a half-decent manager of a decent European football team gets huffy because he didn't win anything this season, takes a year off and waits for a bigger pay cheque. Not ITN-worthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling Guardiola a 'half decent' manager in charge of a 'decent' football team is understating him a bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. He did well but now he's not doing well.  Job done.  Look at Mourinho for additional example of doing well with a massive club but not that well so whatever... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Guardiola's managerial ability is perhaps not fully proven but the team he managed was nearly universally regarded as the best in the world during his tenure and the best ever by many. He also cultivated the career of Lionel Messi, who is regarded as the best player in the world and is now a serious contender of best player ever.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and fascinating. But he's had a poor season and has left with a view to taking over at Chelsea.  It's all about the money.  His team couldn't even beat Chelsea at the Camp Nou, despite making eight billion passes.  Sure, he's done okay, but just because he's taking some time out to wait for a bigger contract we shouldn't consider it for ITN, it's not even caused a ripple in the UK, we all know what he's up to.  $$$$ Boring.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - He did not resign, he simply did not signed a new contract, and not ITN worthy. If it was Sir Alex Ferguson than its a diffrent story (more than 25 years).

Chikyū

 * Support as its the first of its kind/world record and is aso a technological achievement which we dont ge much of. Good to get something other than politics/econ/disaster on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Been wondering how that thing had been doing; figured I'd only find out when something tentacled crawled out of its hole. GRAPPLE   X  08:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support New world record in deep sea drilling is significant and a nice ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question — didn't we post a similar thing by a Russian expedition not too long ago? If these records are going to fall every few months then perhaps it's not that significant. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was drilling into Lake Vostok, which wasn't a record for depth but for virgin territory, it was an underground lake that hadn't seen fresh air in fifteen million years. Drilling stories, yes, but significant for different reasons. GRAPPLE   X  15:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as noteworthy achievement in minority area, once article is sufficiently updated. Khazar2 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. While I'm interested in this one, after taking a closer look, I'm more hesitant now for a few reasons. First is that the world record hasn't been independently confirmed, but is just based on a press release of the research institute that owns the ship. Second is that the article doesn't have much of an update, and looking at the news coverage, it might be difficult to give it one; most news sources seem to simply quote the press release. Is it possible to find some third-party comment on this achievement, its significance, etc.? I've added two sentences about the IODP's claim and the previous record-holder for now. Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- This would bring good balance to ITN. I don't see any minority topics up right now. Bzweebl (Talk) 14:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, leaning towards Oppose- The article states that the aim of Chikyu is to reach the Earth's mantle - has it reached it yet? This is not entirely clear to me... Also, it seems unclear how deep within the soil Chikyu has actually drilled - it states that it reached 7740 meters below sea level - but e.g. the Mariana Trench is 10 km deep at its deepest (so if you hypothetically managed for your drill to touch down on the lowest point of the Mariana Trench and then scratched the surface for 1 meter, would you have the new world record at sea drilling?). Khuft (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Chen Guangcheng

 * Wait. I'd like to wait to see if anything more substantial develops from this, e.g. foreign asylum. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Chen has stated he intends to remain in China and negotiate with authorities. Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. A notable public relations challenge to the Chinese government. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we post "notable" public relations challenges to other governments, such as Australia, Canada, the UK, or only those against governments we disapprove of? HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of comparison, if Bradley Manning escaped federal custody, went on the run, posted a YouTube video alleging mistreatment and making a series of demands of Obama, and sought refuge in the Chinese Embassy, I have trouble imagining that that wouldn't make Wikipedia's front page. Khazar2 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is a little difference between Manning and Chen Guangcheng, a little difference between a high-profiled dissident and a whistleblower, and a little difference between challenging a dictatorial regime and a democratic government, and ... you know the difference. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I heard this story on the World Service this morning. It's a curious little thing but I can't say it's got the 'weight' we usually require for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 04:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor update Chen has been reported by several sources to be at the US Embassy in Beijing, complicating US-China talks scheduled for the coming week and prompting a new round of coverage (e.g., ). Continues to be the lead story on the BBC News homepage 24 hours in. Khazar2 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It's receiving continuing coverage across the international media. HiLo's implied argument that this is only because it's China is spurious -- the fact that it's treated as significant and is receiving a broad and maintained level of coverage is enough. —  Tyrannus  Mundi  12:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support courageous acts of opposition to a fascist dictatorship are certainly newsworthy. A blind freedom fighter, jailed for trying to prevent the inhuman state government from interfering in reproductive rights, escapes house arrest and flees to the US Embassy! This is obviously news! --98.203.99.251 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted The comments here are a bit soapbox-like, but there's support, there's a large update, and this is in the news. --  tariq abjotu  04:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Connecticut abolishes death penalty

 * Given the current state of world affairs on this subject, I think the most notable occurrence will be when all of the states in the U.S. repeal their death penalty laws.--WaltCip (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Not hugely massive news, but significant enough for me given the current state of the timer. If something else gets posted before this then consider this a weak support. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Better than the Dutch train accident. Also, relevant as it exemplifies a general trend in the US away from support for the death penalty. Khuft (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Controversial topic and an ITN-worthy one. Jus  da  fax   19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support About bloody time! In most of the world it's not controversial. That's because they stopped even thinking about state endorsed killing decades ago. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you are of the view that it is the "right" decision, does not in itself make it notable. I say this only because you have offered no other reason for your support. That "most of the world" has even stopped thinking about capital punishment is also factually incorrect when 8 out of the 10 most populous countries in the world still practice it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral First, if this goes up, please update and bold Capital_punishment_in_Connecticut. Second, Connecticut is the 29th most populous state (3.5 million), has sentenced a grand total of 11 people to death since 1973, and executed one since 1960. Texas, California, and Florida abolishing capital punishment would be much more substantial. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is story isn't getting much attention here in the U.S.  Hot Stop   20:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not believe being the 20-30th state to abolish the death penalty is notable, especially given the size of Connecticut and the frequency of its use in that state (per 98.203). This is a very-regional story with little to no coverage outside of the US, and given several of the users above seem to base their support on the fact that the timer is red I direct them to the item on the Dutch PM, which is ready and certainly more notable than this. -- Plasma Twa  2  20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually one of the major French newspapers, Le Monde, is featuring the news: But if I had to choose between this and the Dutch PM resignation, I'd choose the resignation. Khuft (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At least currently not front page news on any major outlet, but most seem to have published a scoop in the US or Politics section. --hydrox (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment half the section is unsourced...at any rate, de jure extension of de fact o is not noteworthy. When was the ast CT abolition?Lihaas (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's has definitely not been de facto abolished. Death penalty was only ruled last year for a particularly heinous crime (also the apparent reason why abolishing only concerns future crimes.) --hydrox (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But when was it last used...as mentioned above once sicne 1960. India still has it, but has about 1 execution a decade or so. big news when the last executioner retired ;)Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Last used in 2005. I would agree that it was de facto abolished if there was no executions since several decades, but an execution only 6 years ago and 11 people on the death row means it had not been actually abolished. And there might still come executions; those on the death row are not subject to pardon despite the repeal --hydrox (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Not the greatest of stories, but reasonably noteworthy. If the header keeps turning red, we should post this. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Did not notice when doing the nomination, but a Capital punishment in Connecticut article also exist. --hydrox (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another state doing so is not "internationally" noteworthy. So many of the obit notices have to fight to overcome the international criteria (re: Dick Clark and Don Cornelius) that other blurbs should be held to the same standard. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I agree with above positions that this is not noteworthy. No international significance of note, and no major effect on Connecticut itself as 98.203.99.251 mentioned. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 02:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sure, this is only one state but the US as a whole is an outlier across the Western world in the continued use of the death penalty which is regarded by many as a human rights abuse, something we typically regard with the utmost gravity. Standards differ, of course, but that does lend international notability. ITN has been very slow of late - only one topic currently on this page is in the template - and this seems the strongest story currently under consideration. As for the target, one line in the Connecticut article seems the appropriate level of coverage and we shouldn't distort the balance of the wider article with this, the more specific articles are obviously better options. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose I think it would be more noteworthy when there are no states left that enforce the death penalty, if/when that ever happens (or if any nation as a whole abolishes it). Looking at a worldwide scale, having just one U.S. state abolish the death penalty isn't significant enough, seeing as how it is still practiced in the majority of US states, and in at least 23 other countries in the world. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support In the context of California's news (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17821550), I think it is interesting that another state has made a move on this. Given the nature of the death penalty argument in the US, and its use there compared to other developed Western countries, all developments have a notability of sorts. I think it's worth running with this on the front page because it's relevant, interesting and, for the USA, a notable development along the very long capital punishment debate doktorb wordsdeeds 05:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's newsworthy enough to be covered in Melbourne, Australia The rest of the world IS watching. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The significance of this is not that the death penalty was abolished in one U.S. state -- it's that it is now abolished in one-third of the 50 U.S. states. In past cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether a particular form of punishment is "cruel and unusual" (and thus barred by the U.S. Constitution), an important factor in the decision was the fraction of U.S. jurisdictions that had abolished the particular form of punishment. Some U.S. states will never independently decide to eliminate capital punishment, but the one-third-of-the-states threshold may prove to be significant in inducing the Supreme Court to do it for them. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It is note-worthy and significant any time any state (sovereign or part of a federation) adds or removes the death penalty. -- RA (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's my understanding that we're now setting a precedence that we can post major legislative decisions for states?--WaltCip (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if people agree with it.  Hot Stop   18:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed comments about the international attention? The non-American Supports aren't really about the law in just one little state. It's about the fact that the US is slowly moving towards the position of the rest of the western world on this major moral issue. To that audience, this is about the whole United States (we hope). HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you wholeheartedly admit that WP:ITN has an agenda.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming this is newsworthy because it is an example of the US's move away from the death penalty could be seen as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I would argue that the abolsihment of the death penalty in California or Texas would be news simply given the prevalance of the death penalty in those states, but saying that a tiny state's decision to get rid of it is notable because it is symbolic of the entire country's movement away from it is absurd, especially when states 8-10 times the population still have the penalty. -- Plasma Twa  2  21:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment leaning to oppose. Why is this globally relevant?  If the USA abolished the insane death penalty (or China etc) then yes, run it, but one state of fifty (and I know not all fifty have the death penalty before you all go berserk) has chosen to stop murdering prisoners, is this really of significance to our readers?  And, by the way, where is Connecticut?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to ask why it's globally relevant, but to simply note that it is. There have been enough posts demonstrating that. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd note that it was globally relevant if I saw evidence of it in my country, and I don't. And I see plenty of other evidence that the ongoing murder of prisoners is prevalent in the US, China, North Korea etc.  Once one of those countries abolishes this approach to "justice", that'd be ITN-worthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Much of the support above seems to be due to approval of a policy that we want to continue, not actual newsworthiness, let alone worldwide impact. ITN is not about, for example, "[exemplifying general trends]".  μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very weak support. I've dealt with the tag on the article. Formerip (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted Not overwhelming consensus, but we seriously need new content on ITN. --  tariq abjotu  04:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget overwhelming, I dont see any consensus at all. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Horlicks. This shouldn't have gone up, especially when there are plenty of other items that are much more notable. -- Plasma Twa  2  06:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my decision. You both are simply restating your positions. While I don't agree this is a big story, others -- for some reason -- do. The article is sufficiently updated and I'd rather see controversially supported content than stale content (the Amsterdam story that would replace it wasn't exactly met with open arms when it was posted either). If this were a big news week, I probably wouldn't have put it up, but unless those "more notable" stories make their way into articles on Wikipedia, I don't see sufficient cause to remove this one. --  tariq abjotu  06:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Tariqabjotu that posting this item is better than coping with stale contents. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment shouldn't the headline link to the Capital punishment in Connecticut article instead of Capital punishment in the United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.211.245 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for this whatsoever..you cant go on the whim and fancy of admins who make their own decisions. Then why have ITN? Why have ITNC? just post anything...whats the point of discussion? abjotu has been around posting what he feels and how he feels for the last week with scant regard for consensus on most. This is not a timer thing because some 3-4 things have changed at short term anyways. And there are multiple editors calling for it pulled but he stands by his decision because he feels like it!Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sudan/South Sudan

 * Support: Looks notable enough. Besides, if ITN updates get any slower we run the risk of breaking the space-time continuum and end up travelling backwards in time. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - Noteworthy topic as I said on the last discussion, but the blurb should be reworded and made more specific. Something more like "After losing control of Heglig, South Sudanese President Salva Kiir states that Sudan has declared war"? I'm not sure. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable topic generally but I'm not seeing any actual events here above and beyond the skimishes that have now been going on for some time. That it was not posted last time around is no reason to post now in the absence of any event of note. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? Losing and takign Heglig? Aircraft ombings? Declarations of war/enemy. Halt to talks in Ethiopia? Its not like there are skyscrapers in Juba to bomb outLihaas (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Heglig was the previous nomination which demonstrates the point. Where is the new element for this nomination?  All we have as far as I can see is one side claiming that the actions of the other amount to a declaration of war.  Let's let them speak for themselves, shall we? Crispmuncher (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sudanese air force were actually reported to have bombed South Sudan inside the recogniesed borders (and by Sudan too)Lihaas (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If there was an actual declaration of war, then I'd support. Formerip (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Palestine/Israel is an on-going conflict and we rarely nominate that. I can't see this being a front page nomination unless there's a single incident which justifies it. At the moment, it's just simmering and that doesn't make the grade doktorb wordsdeeds 17:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks definitely more notable than the train accident in the Netherlands, which happened a few days ago and was not so dramatic after all. Khuft (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Continuation of conflict isn't really a news item. IF Sudan actually declares war then there is no question that will go up, but until then it's essentially the same-old, same-old. -- Plasma Twa  2  20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral- I would like something from this conflict to go up at some point, but the thought that an official war might break out may be worth waiting for. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See this BOTH sdes accuse other of declarng wr. Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Alberta general election, 2012

 * Oppose there were oppose votes earlier this year when the president of Moldova, a country with more population and a UN seat, was elected. Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't support this. We simply don't post election results of provinces. Similarly, we don't post them for states, either.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As bad as it is to have the election results for president of East Timor up ("a ceremonial role without political power", seriously?), there's no reason to report on Alberta. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose No reason to post small elections. Also Jack Layton was federal not provincial. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ultimately, the result of the election was not outstanding.  The same PC majority that Alberta has had since 1971.  The "Tea Party of Canada" epithet is POV and the pollsters being amazingly wrong is interesting, but not ITN worthy.  Maybe if Wildrose won and there was an international reaction on the level of the SoCred victory in 1935, but not this case. Resolute 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Did ITN post election results from one of the so-called "Home countries" not too long ago? – H T  D  00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. A national election across a country is not the same as a provincial election across just one part of a country. I wouldn't expect to see the Belfast mayoral election, the Californian gubernatorial election, or the Karnatakan general election here; I would expect to see the Northern Irish general election, American presidential election, or Indian general election. GRAPPLE   X  01:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The keyword is "so-called". You can argue that since Northern Ireland is a subdivision of the UK, it's pretty much on the same level as Alberta, Uttar Pradesh, Rhode Island, Tasmania, Mato Grosso and other "states". There was even a study that said that the Canadian states were the most powerful country subdivisions (I suspect this is about the Albertan petroleum industry). – H T  D  01:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Grapple would be in a minority in expecting to see the results of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections being posted (there is no "general election" to speak of), and I would venture to suggest that he writes out of a lack of constitutional awareness: the NIA elections in 2011 were, as far as I remember, not even nominated. If we posted either the 2011 Welsh Assembly election, or 2011 Scottish general election results, it certainly wasn't noted on their talk pages, and I don't believe that it did happen.  Of course, even if it did, it would have no direct affect on this nomination, as ITN does not have a system of authority of precedent, and they would have needed to have been argued on the basis of exceptional impact and news coverage.  That did happen in the recent Myanmar elections (elections to national, not regional, government: re-enfranchisement of a party with a major international profile and an important role in that nation's history); I see no such extraordinary notability in Alberta 2012. Kevin McE (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment We posted the by-elections in Myanmar, where 48 of a total of 168 elected seats were contested. If that can go up, so can this. All the "oppose small election" or "oppose we opposed something else" votes should be disregarded. If this was really a big deal, then it should be treated as such. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose- The Myanmar election had significant implications, which I just don't see in this nom. It may be a curious incident, but it is far too trivial and unimportant to be posted. &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash; talk 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Territorial rather than national election, without anything so out of the ordinary as to override the general principle. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regional elections very, very rarely get on the front page, if at all. Within the context of our on-going (never ending) election nomination process I cannot see how we can bend the rules to allow regional elections through doktorb wordsdeeds 17:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Might have been relevant if the Wildrose Party had indeed won, but since they didn't, there seems no reason to highlight this regional election compared to any other regional/local election. Khuft (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ivy Bridge

 * Oppose We post far too many IT related stories as it is. This is just another routine progression in the industry.  There's nothing revolutionary about it at all and we are not here to report every insignificant development.  Leave it to the industry commentators. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment We post far too many incremental updates to Myanmar, but they still get posted. Frequency of topics is irrelevant. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not when minority topic status is being asserted. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment: I'm not sure were this idea of "far too many IT stories" is coming from, but the vast majority of our stories are disasters or political developments, with a few predetermined sport postings. Anything outside of those areas - including IT - rarely gets posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are two minority topics that can be asserted - business and technology - and both get used to justify IT-related stories more than any other kind - IT represents a clear majority for both classifications despite being a tiny percentage of the possible range of stories for each. When minority topic status is being repeatedly asserted on routine stories involving the same few companies - Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Google - and those stories are going up regularly as a result, it's legitimate to question whether those stories still deserve minority status. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Oppose This is just an incremental update. The Semiconductor device fabrication article makes it pretty clear that 16nm and 11nm are on the horizon. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Much too narrow interest. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the purpose of making it a minority topic? So that it will be recognized that it may be of narrow interest, but that shouldn't degrade the nomination? &mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, a minority topic requires less of a consensus to post. I still stand by my oppose, but I oppose the grounds of the other opposes. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional support in principle it would be a worthwhile post IFF the 22nm article would be cleaned up. Nergaal (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- As previously mentioned, this is a fairly major technological advancement of our society. I do not believe that this should not be posted just because it will soon be irrelevant. The fact that one technological advancement will be followed by another does not retroactively make the first one unimportant. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 23:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been in the pipeline for several years: new plant can't be built overnight, and it takes time to develop processes to the point they are a commercial practicality. If this particular shrinking was somehow breaking into the unknown the time to post would have been a couple of years ago when the first experimental samples were available, or a year before that when prototype stepper optics had advanced to the point it became a possibility.  By the time cutting-edge semiconductor developments are productised they are no longer cutting edge.  Intel and AMD both work on two shrinks simultaneously: they are already working on the next shrink and the one after that.  Ultimately this is not some huge breakthough, essentially all this is is an ongoing shrink whose only practical significance is slightly more megahertz per watt of the kind that has been going on since well before the 4004 was released in 1971. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Support: However, I reiterate Nergaal's concerns. The article needs to be cleaned-up. Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see this as being significant enough. I don't feel as though you can consider a new model of a consumer-end CPU to be a significant achievement, when it only offers a 5-15% increase in performance over the previous generation. In fact, gains like this should be expected when a new generation of processor is released, especially seeing as how Intel and AMD churn out a new generation of processors every 8-12 months or so. Had this been drastically different than the previous generation in terms of features and benefits, I would then consider it to be worthy. It's the same thing with new cars: you usually don't see that much improvement in a years time to call it significantly different over the previous model. To me, this is exactly why we don't post things like the iPad 3 and other consumer-end electronics/technology products: where is the significant improvement, and where is its real-world impact? -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

PM of Netherlands resigns
comment this article Rutte cabinet might be relevant to a better blurb EdwardLane (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, significant event, just noticed it in the news several seconds before. Brand meister talk   20:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a reasonable story but we will be posting the formation of a new government with or without elections. I'm not sure it is significant enough to justify two posts.  At the very least I would leave it 24 hours or so until the situation regarding elections and so on becomes more concrete. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose pending update article needs significant update to post. Why did he resign, and what does his resignation mean? Did a deputy take over? Is there a new election? When? Im also not clear on the role of the PM. In the UK and Canada the PM is the big cheese, but the Prime Minister of the Netherlands article says Because of their limited powers. So which is it? --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As the blurb says, the PM did not only offer his own resignation, he offered the resignation of the whole cabinet. He still remains the PM for the time being (the deputy has also resigned), and in fact the cabinet will still be there until the early elections, be it in demissionary form (meaning that it doesn't have the full powers of a normal cabinet). The PM may have limited powers, but he is the face of the government and carries the most responsibility. Thayts (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Needs update, though. Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThe Mark Rutte article sems to have had some update - paraphrasing I see that, Geert Wilders (for the right wing P.V.V party) looks to have stormed out of talks about the economic pressures in europe resulting in a collapse of the coalition government led by Mark Rutte and then resignation of the PM and Rutte cabinet . Fresh elections don't seem to be expected until July some time. EdwardLane (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: at the risk of ITN becoming "too Dutch". But I oppose the blurb. The Queen is not a very significant part of the story, merely performing her ceremonial duties. A better blurb would be that "The Government of Mark Rutte falls in the Netherlands." Colipon+ (Talk) 15:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support resignation of a top politician in a major country, but I agree the article needs to be updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Collapse of government in a major EU economy is noteworthy, but the article is still not updated . --hydrox (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - If I had more time I'd try to update the article, but I don't. Jus  da  fax   07:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed blurbLihaas (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support but wait a little while to see if anything develops. This is newsworthy in itself, but it would be a bit silly to post it, and then have to post the new PM straight afterwards. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC) - Note: this !vote was (accidentally) removed by Bzweebl, and I've only just noticed and reinstated it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There won't be a new PM for at least 5 months, when the new elections will be. Thayts (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - One of the major events in Europe this week; with potential implications on the European financial crisis. Khuft (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral May have to wait until elections are called and/or held. The resignation is significant however and does tie in with much of the on-going economic/political stories of recent months. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Article seems to have a sufficient update, marking ready. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article should be Rutte cabinet and not Mark Rutte since the whole cabinet failed in the negotiations and resigned, not only the PM. Thayts (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not ready Article has orange tag. --  tariq abjotu  21:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment If it's the Rutte cabinet article that is bold then there is no such tag, if it's the mark article then I think the only bit that has a tag is that he belongs to a particular protestant church, which seems pretty likely given it's the most common protestant church in the netherlands, but I my dutch is not quite good enough to track that down. Suggest using the Rutte Cabinet article as the bold one and then this may be ready ? EdwardLane (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Sloterdijk rail accident

 * Support purely because of large amount of injuries and casualties. However, I would recommend wikilinking "collide" instead of "head-on." <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl's comment (including suggestion to move wikilink to "collide"). -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There will have been countless fatal accidents worldwide in the last few days, and will be in the days this would be on the main page, that for reasons of systemic bias will not be drawn to our attention. The injuries of a few dozen people should not trump the deaths of probably many more simply because of the proximity of TV camera crews and the average income in the country where it occurred.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As you didn't specify which "countless fatal accidents worldwide" you were referring to it's a bit hard to counter that point, but we did post Bhoja Air Flight 213's 127 dead. Excluding conflict zones and homicide, other multiple fatalities I could find on a quick stroll around Google News (7 dead in Kenya flooding, 13 dead in Chinese road accident, 3 dead in Denver road crash, 2 dead in Queensland motorcycle crash, 3 dead in a collapsed building in India, 2 dead in Washington arson, and |head 2 cats dead in an Indiana fire), none appear to have received the coverage anywhere near to this accident. --hydrox (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely, systemic bias which we should be trying to minimise, not exacerbate. And even within the examples you cite, a distinct reporting bias towards the white majority, English-speaking world.  Defence of this item on the grounds that rail travel is popular in central Europe (Amsterdam, central?) would need to consider the popularity of road transport and house dwelling. Kevin McE (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what if I said ITN should not judge notability on editors' views of what should be included and not (even if those tend to anti-bias "affirmative action"), but on the mere grounds of what is widely reported in the most cited news sources. In the end, the fundamental requirement of inclusion in Wikipedia is not the ever-evasive truth, but what was reported. --hydrox (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If death count >0, then post, else oppose.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One person has died so far. I will wait it out. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - major disaster.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no deaths for now. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  13:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose with or without deaths Rail accident in Argentina goes up, in Canada goes down, so this one up? In the end they're tragic but mundane transportation accidents. If an inquiry is convened, and major changes to rail transport regulation result, then that would be news. This isn't. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So the major cause for potential changes to regulation is not news? May I ask you what your definition of news is? It's not even that this happens every day, it's very rare in the Netherlands. That alone makes it very noteworthy (read: major news). Thayts (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember the fire in Antarctica? It was established that the frequency of such events in a given location does not contribute to the notability of such events. A cause for potential is nothing, when something changes, then it's news. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, completely. Every case is different of course, but it does have some weight. Thayts (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. One dead and a huge number of seriously injured. This notable, because traveling by rail is extremely popular in Central Europe. Accidents will affect a large number of people, and raise questions of rail security in Europe. Nanobear (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Central Europe?) HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Slow news weekend. This has been a major story in European outlets throughout the weekend. Good-quality developing article. --hydrox (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I normally don't support this type of item, but the arguments of supporters here sway me. Head on crash? Brrrr. Article decent. Let's post. Jus  da  fax   23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have held back on this to see how it pans out, but (and I know this sounds callus) a rail accident with only one death is just not that significant, are we going to start posting accidents at, for example, railway crossings when two or more occupants die ? As Kevin McE points out above, to post this just extends the systemic bias. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The lack of deaths or a low number of deaths should not be seen as impacting notability. We need to look at what has happened; and also where it has happened. This was a head-on crash in a country with a modern, well-developed rail system. Had such a crash happened in a third-world country with a less-developed rail system, then the arguments against posting would be much stronger. BTW, the Netherlands doesn't get that much coverage on ITN, so this could also be seen as a minority topic. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support though Id like this to replace the plane crash, else ITN would be full of tragedy. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 06:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tragedy makes news, that's why there is so much of it reported. The oldest article (another tragedy) will go and the new one will take its place in the queue. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready, subject to the posting Admin's evaluation of consensus and the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Low death toll.  It also hasn't been a major news headline; one of hte objections to the perfect game below was it wasn't a particularly big headline and I think the same applied here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted This is not overwhelming consensus. By some accounts, this probably isn't consensus, but the timer is flaming red and while the aims of the countering systematic bias crowd may be altruistic, they are misplaced. While this has existed at ITN for years, there seems to be a feeling among editors here that there are events we "do post" and those we "don't post". Stories featured prominently in the media are not posted because we they're derided as "tabloid fodder" or "yet another sports story" while stories that make headlines in very few places (e.g. elections in very small countries) are posted because those are stories we "do post". In either category, the "if it didn't happen in White-Majority Country X, we would/wouldn't be posting this" argument lurks in the background. Look. People have adequately demonstrated that this is in the news across a wide area. The article is well-updated. That's enough. Save your efforts to rid the world of bias for someplace where it really matters. --  tariq abjotu  20:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Commment Three days AFTER it happened? What are the first three letters of the word news...  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two days. Either way, it's quite sad that even though it was posted more than two days after the event, it still is the latest news item. --  tariq abjotu  09:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One could argue that it is, in fact, quite the opposite of sad... Normally, only disasters and other bad news get posted unexpectedly, so the lack of updates likely indicates not much bad has happened in the last few days.  (The non-negative stories are mostly preplanned: elections, awards, sporting events, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I expect to get consensus for pulling this, given our bias for all things Dutch, but with one death it really does look like an April Fools headline. In the US we just had two train deaths, a man electrocuted by urinating on the tracks, and a murder suspect under hot pursuit who leapt in front of an oncoming train.  Those are both much more interesting stories. Truly, what is the criterion being followed here?  μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While I opposed this nomination on the grounds of systemic bias and a mercifully low mortality rate, I would much more strongly support it against any attempt to turn ITN into a collection of Darwin award nominations. Kevin McE (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's quite ridiculous that this is still the top news. Can we just delete it? The other ones below it are still arguably relevant, and maybe there's no consensus for anything that happened since to be included. But why are we still highlighting this? No major newspaper seems to be mentioning it anymore. Khuft (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the "top" news story because nothing newer has replaced it. Geez. Why is this so difficult to understand? --  tariq abjotu  21:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just starting to look deeper into this whole thing; still trying to understand the process. I'm not doubting the reasoning for including it in the first place; I'm just wondering whether it would make sense if some items such as this "disaster" news should have a "time tag" so that after a few days they are deleted automatically... Khuft (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an insidious post unilaterally decided on the whim of an admnin who then says "why is it so difficult [to understand my posting]? are you kidding? ITN is not for admins to decide on their own what suits them?Lihaas (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Philip Humber's perfect game

 * i see a snowball falling... -- Ashish-g55 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, as an obviously rare and noteworthy accomplishment (as with the 100 cricket centuries or the skateboarding 1080). However, it's really premature to call WP:SNOW before a single !vote has been cast. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, can't we get better posts than that? The two events chosen for comparison were unique. This isn't, by a long shot. It's the sort of post more likely to discourage support. HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * i didnt oppose as u can see... i was merely suggesting that per previous discussions. The argument will be same, another perfect game can be thrown tomorrow. and 21st is no special achievement. comparing it to 100 cricket centuries is not really fair as one can guarantee that will not happen for a very long time to come, also that was first time in history not 21st. -- Ashish-g55 23:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain we've posted multiple perfect games on ITN, so I'm not sure where this comes from. And another 8.6-magnitude earthquake could just as easily happen tomorrow, but we posted that as well. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to oppose this, but you're going to have to do better than that. This is not probably going to have a flurry of supports, but I don't think there will be a flurry of opposes either. --  tariq abjotu  00:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply compare an achievement in sports with a natural disaster. I don't like to give you any further reasoning for that, but an 8.6-magnitude earthquake will surely be covered everywhere as a breaking news, while a perfect game in baseball will be so as a sports news in a very limited area. We always tend to post news by its significance and global impact, and not on the grounds of how interesting it looks at first glance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not make such a comparison. I responded directly to Ashish's (theoretical) point. He didn't say perfect games are not covered widely; he said perfect games could easily happen again tomorrow. I'm not going to respond to a point he didn't make. A lot of types of events we post here could happen again tomorrow. At lot of events we know exactly when they'll happen again over the course over the next year. The idea that an event should be excluded because it could happen again tomorrow is ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons to oppose this, but that's not one of them. --  tariq abjotu  03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * each successive perfect game is similar to previous one whereas earthquakes are not. hence if it occurs again tomorrow would 22nd be posted just because 21st was? whats the difference between them that would prevent it? earthquakes have magnitude, damage, deaths etc.... -- Ashish-g55 04:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can argue that each perfect game is unique. Each baseball/football/basketball match is different from the one before it, in the same way earthquakes are different. – H T  D  04:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, if this would be posted, most likely the next would be, probably as a combined blurb. Anyway, each perfect game is won by different pitchers. They're played against different teams. They're won with different set of pitches. You can come up with a variety of metrics to make two events not the same. To be honest, I'm surprised you're continuing to argue along this line. --  tariq abjotu  04:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment 2009's perfect game by Buehrle was posted, so we certainly aren't in SNOWball territory. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And it was removed same day.. after 4 hours -- Ashish-g55 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for several reasons. Even if we consider the last post from 2009, it seems the only one before the next two fail to be posted, so to keep neutrality over the importance of this accomplishment there must be an explanation that states why this perfect game is more significant than the previous two. Furthermore, Humber's perfect game occurs as fourth in 3 years which does not tend to be rare as we have records and accomplishments that were standing for many years. Lastly, the article is in very bad shape and needs substantial improvement to get sufficient quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose—my reasoning is simply that this is the twenty-first perfect game, not the first. I've supported first-time sporting achievements before, and will continue to do so again, but another occurrence of something that has happened twenty times before isn't really that much of a landmark. A great personal achievement, sure, but not breaking news. GRAPPLE   X  00:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support-Quite simply, in over a century of professional baseball, only 21 perfect games have been thown. Over 2,000 games are played every season in the modern era, making this an extremely rare feat. Major League baseball is popular in both North and South America, and also enjoys a large following in Japan. Hence a rare event with a large audience throughout several areas of the world deserves to have such event reported. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  00:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Newsworthy, yes, but this has been done twenty times before, a read of the linked article shows that there are no firsts to this (third perfect game in White Sox history, the 18th no-hitter in White Sox history, second fewest starts prior to throwing a perfect game) except it was the guys first career complete game, if he does it again in todays game then come back as that would be significant. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The achievement is rare (143 years of baseball/21 perfect games = one every 6.8 years on average), but more importantly it is the ultimate achievement in the sport. If you want to look at it that way, the achievement "ties" the record for best game, since it is literally impossible to do better than a perfect game.  For comparison, the Men's 100 meter record has been broken 20 times since 1910, so in terms of frequency a perfect game is about as common as 100m record. (And indeed MLB games are more common than sprints by top level competition, so it that respect a perfect game/game played is rarer than a world record/100m race contested).  Sure it *could* happen again tomorrow, but that is an exceptionally dumb reason to oppose; another airplane could crash and kill 100, but that, of course is not a reason to avoid posting Bhoja Air Flight 213.   --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When calculating a frequency of something to happen in recent times it is usual to omit the periods with large discrepancy to get to a more precise result. Perhaps it used to be a very rare and special achievement in the past or some periods, but definitely the time gap is shortening too much. If we calculate for last 10 perfect games in 24 years, it would yield to 2.4 years per game; if last 5 in 8 years, then 1.6 years per game. Following this progression it's obvious that a perfect game is something that becomes more common.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is generally not a good idea to draw conclusions from a small sample. If you look at the entire history of perfect games, you'll see they are randomly sprinkled throughout.  For example, the first two both occurred in 1880.  There is no reason to think the feat is any easier today, than in the past.  (However, more games are played per year now than in the past. So, naturally there will be somewhat more perfect games now; maybe one every 3-4 years on average.  Whether its once evry 6-7 years or 3-4 years, makes very little difference to my argument.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We reached the conclusion here. As many games are played that raises the probability for a perfect games, but it also makes not a rare event. Apparently it's something very important in this sport, but it's still not that much even if you claim in the past it wasn't something common. But if it were a perfect game after a long years period, as it happened in 2009, I would probably have a different opinion about this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose— to me this look like a big win or defeat, it happend too many times in too many sport around the world, gonna we post everytime that a NBA team beat another for many points? gonna we post everytime that Barcelona FC win 7-0 or a NFL team win 20-0 or a boxer get a knock out very fast? also it game was not "The Final" or something around; but I dont know baseball, maybe this was like Spain winning the World Cup by first time in 2010--Feroang (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, maybe you should look up what you are commenting on if you don't understand what it is about. A perfect game has zero to do with margin of victory.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, this oppose vote was all sorts of fail. – H T  D  03:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Rare enough achievement to merit main page mention. -- Jayron  32  02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with those pointing to rarity of event and world stature of this sport. Jus  da  fax   02:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It may seem paradoxical, but rare events happen all the time, so it's not enough. Individual sporting achievements have to break new ground, IMO. Formerip (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By definition, you can't surpass ("break new ground") a perfect game. – H T  D  03:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which would mean that once it's been done, it's had its chance at being newsworthy. GRAPPLE   X  03:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Newsworthiness >/ uniqueness, although in sports, this is reversed. Then again, the ITNR list has sports that are not as reported than perfect games, so... – H T  D  03:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I like baseball and I understand the significance of a perfect game, but it's an individual accomplishment that has been done before. Sports news isn't really real news, and in my opinion the bar should be set a little higher for sports-related ITN entries. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The 21st of ANYTHING like this is, by its very nature, not notable. This is a record insofar as someone has retained some kind of stats burst on the back of a cigarette packet, but important enough for the front page here it most certainly is not. "The 21st most something in a sport" is not considered important in any field that I can think of. As much as certain sports like their stats - cricket, for example - we should only accept nominations in this type when the very top/most is broken, and even then only after serious consideration. Baseball is always 50/50 here anyway; baseball's twenty first most something arbitrary statistic? No chance. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not sure where you got this idea that we are talking about the "21st most something"; we are actually talking about the 21st time something happened. By your logic, the 21st time someone was elected president of the USA it "by its very nature" wasn't notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm saying at all. In the context of a sporting event, the twenty-first person to have achieved something is way, way down the line. Not even the first page. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is coming from an editor that specializes in baseball history. While pitching a perfect game is extremely notable (several books been written just on the subject), recently there beem 4 perfect games in the past four years, plus another one which would have been a perfect game if the umpire didn't blown the call, so it's not becoming as rare of a feat anymore. Out of those four years, the year that there was no perfect games i think something like 6 no-hitters happened that season. I'll only support a baseball ITN posting if a highly notable and influential player that advanced the progress of the sport dies (Stan Musial, Sandy Koufax, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, maybe Marvin Miller), or if someone breaks a significant record like hitting five home runs in a game (never done) or hit over .400 in a season (last time done was in 1941), or the World Series and that's about it. Secret account 03:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, its probably not a good idea to extrapolate forward on a data set of four. It is, of course, possible that perfect games are becoming more common, but more likely it is just a coincidence that several have occurred over a short period of time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There have been 200,276 MLB games played to date, and even more games played if you count other leagues, like the NPB. A perfect game has only been thrown 21 times in history (counting this one). This is one of, if not the most difficult individual sporting achievements possible. Also, not that it makes much of a difference, the 18th perfect game, pitched by Mark Buehrle in 2009, was featured on ITN. Plus, there is a big red new item timer up there. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 05:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The colour of the timer is irrelevant. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Who? What?  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know what it is (and I'm Australian!), but I don't know who it is. (Obviously I can look that up.) It's an impressive achievement in baseball, but I just can't get my head to think that this is more important than a lot of other stuff in the world now and in recent times. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per my usual opposition to sports trivia, but I don't remember any arrogant "who, whats" to some joker "batting 100 centuries in cricket" (which was posted). --98.203.99.251 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is just as silly as the first Support post, which I also criticised. The 100 centuries was unique. (That means it's only happened once.) This isn't, by a long shot. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I argued in that case that the benchmark was arbitrary. What happens when he bats 101? Remember? So how many perfect pitches is special? It doesn't matter, since sports trivia (and in fact most trivia) has no place on ITN. I was more appalled by the "yawn" "irrelevant" "sucks to the USA" responses and was comparing that to the "OMFG yes 100 centuries in cricket obvious support". Sorry if I was unclear, it's all the sick people and random gun fire here in America it makes it hard to think. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as article creator Rare sports feat, 21 times in 140 something years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Per above. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 18:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support one of the rarest achievements in modern sport. Leaky  Caldron  19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pushing it a bit. How many sports, in how many places, have you studied? Have you heard of a hat-trick in Test Cricket? HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with almost every sport. This is rare and, more significantly in relation to your comparison with cricket's hatrick, is a match winning performance, usually by an individual. Hatricks, Snooker 147s, Golf hole in ones, 9 darters, etc. do not in themselves win a match single handedly. Leaky  Caldron  09:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As List of Major League Baseball perfect games says, more people have orbited the moon than thrown an MLB perfect game. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about Nippon_Professional_Baseball or this has nothing to do with the sport itself but rather MLB? -- Ashish-g55 20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rare in NPB, too. It's rare in baseball overall. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's rare. It's a great achievement, and my oppose vote isn't all that strong. I just get pretty cranky when I see silly wording from baseball fans with either limited perspective, or who throw away their perspective when they get excited about something. And I also get cranky with dumb Oppose votes like the one at 14:45, 22 April above. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu, i only gave you the list since you made a very odd comparison. im not sure how the rarity of this event can possibly be compared to number of men orbiting the moon... so i just wanted to show you it has happened outside MLB too. everyone knows it rare (look at Rambling man's comment below) but so are other things -- Ashish-g55 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rare like a 147 maximum in snooker in the World Championships? That's only happened 10 times?  Or a televised nine-dart finish (only 28 of those ever)....? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rare like Tom Boonen's feat in becoming the only man ever to win all three cobbled classics in cycling, a series of races that has been held since 1934 (war years excluded)? Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose 21 times in the roughly 100 years isn't rare. It's happening roughly every five years, on average across the period and seems to be happening very much more frequently than that, with five incidences in the last eight years. It's just not a big deal. No sign of it being reported on BBC News, even on the sports headlines page. Presumably massive in the US, but not prominent in the rest of the world? --Dweller (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Outside of the sports media, it wasn't massive in the US. It was a below the fold headline in the NY Times and the Washington Post.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Indonesia earthquake

 * Seems like an aftershock of the earthquake we posted last time. And there is not articleLihaas (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; Agreed with Lihaas. No article no posting. A simple rule of WP:ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soviet King (talk • contribs)
 * Posts should also be toward the merit of the story, not over the fact that there currently isn't one. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  23:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we might not have a very good earthquake at the moment.. but this one is NOT an aftershock of the banda quake. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sudan/South Sudan

 * Comment It appears there is a lack of clarity about what has happened here, with the south claiming a withdrawal and the north claiming a forceful re-taking. We need to either establish what has happened more definitively or choose our words very carefully in any blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, thats why i said retakes control and not "Evict" or "wins battle" or "conceded" . Its NPOV to say they took back control as they had it first and they have write and its in intl borders of Sudan.Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As stated above, and as I have mentioned before with Sudan/South Sudan, there is no one development which is notable enough to put on the front page. It is an on-going event which has many small developments that do not, as yet, add up to anything doktorb wordsdeeds 01:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A sticky as an ongoing conflcit? Taking back the large and most contentious zone (for its oil capacity) seems like a big event. Its certainly an event of note in some way (a la the Arab Srings we posted yet not posting all events). A better blurb alt?Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- This is a climax of an ongoing conflict. I feel like this nomination is being degraded just because it is surrounded by a near war that is also highly notable. If a major event is surrounded by events that are almost as major, the event should not be diminished. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 01:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl. Since it is a major development concerning what I understand to be the fulcrum of an important conflict, this is a significant event. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bahrain GP

 * wait to see if anything happens, the race is on Sunday..incidentally when and if posted then the link to the protests aticle should be bolded tooLihaas (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Just another incident in the ongoing Bahraini protests. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah but its intl stature is massive. Its akin to Prt Said in EgyptLihaas (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this, wait There may be a nomination eventually but at the moment there is nothing....'tangible' for us to hang a hook on doktorb wordsdeeds 01:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Support inclusion but wait till event in case anything further takes place. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 12:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not normally a fan of GPs, but the arrogance of organisers and the subsequent protests have made this pretty big news. HiLo48 (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support per AroundTheGlobe. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral GPs have been canceled before, and it's not that special (happens every few seasons; last year Bahrain was actually cancelled). Now, how is that then so special when a GP actually goes ahead amid protests? --hydrox (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to Neutral. Alongside French election, it's the news story of the day in many outlets. Suggest blurb: "Sebastian Vettel wins the 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix while local police clash with civilian protesters." Just to make a clear distinction between "protest" in the sports sense and the civilian disorder sense.. --hydrox (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- Protests of this magnitude that have such effects are surely notable. I particularly like how this has an influence on two different subjects. The coinciding of the protest and the race has made this important news. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If anything, the article is a really good piece already. This should get some sort of coverage, regardless of the race happening or not.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but wait, per Lihaas. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The race has finished, and it seems to be the biggest story of the day, even though protests had no effect whatsoever on the race itself. To my understanding, most race tourists or sports journalistshave have neither been engaged by protesters. Do correct me if I am wrong, but the only effect the protests had in the race seems to be that two Force India engineers left the event on Friday after their unmarked rental car stuck in a roadblock and was hit by a petrol bomb (that caused no damage). --hydrox (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose non-event both off and on the track. Leaky  Caldron  19:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about this do you consider to be a non-event? <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ready- Although consensus is not overwhelming, there are some old items on ITN and the update on this article is excellent. This seems to be a borderline piece of news based on above opinions, but I think the update should push it over the top. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem posting this, but I think we should wait until the split to 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests is complete (presuming it remains). Basically, this just entails adding a lead paragraph to the new article and cutting down the protests section(s) in the original article. Since the protests will be the focus here, I think the split is a crucial component. --  tariq abjotu  07:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Bhoja Air Flight 213
A plane crashes in Pakistan with 127 people on-board. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Obvious support, but article could use some work before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's being bashed into shape as we speak. I wish ES wouldn't create mega-short stubs as soon as something happens. There's no rush to be the first to create an article on an event. It's better to take a bit of time and get some structure into the article before posting it. Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the stub is in a half-decent state, worst airline disaster of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Deadly aviation incident, plenty of sources available to expand the article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious support. Major airline disaster. __meco (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: 127 dead is certainly notable - 220  of  Borg 17:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This one seems to be one of the deadliest plane crashes in recent times. It should be posted as soon as possible, while the news is still at its peak importance in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - With news of almost 120 passengers killed, it is one of the significant aircrash of last few years. The blurb should be posted ASAP. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready, subject to review by an admin who has not been heavily involved in editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I was about to mark this ready myself when I saw Mjroots had got in before me. Article looks in good shape for a current event. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Posting.  Spencer T♦ C 21:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * General comment. It seems to me that every airline disaster that has had over 100 die gets an automatic post on ITN. This is so consistent that it may well be ITN/R. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube

 * Oppose - Nothing has really changed for YouTube as a result of this story. They've always been under pressure to hunt down copyrighted content; this is just a civil suit.--WaltCip (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As WaltCip, it's a small blip but nothing (yet) significant doktorb wordsdeeds 14:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Decision by low-level district court, basically zero impact (even in Germany). --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Merely a procedural incident. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This doesn't seem that significant, nor does it appear to be definitive. __meco (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Permanent significance for Youtube in Germany. All uploaded videos are now filtered for possible copyright infringements. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting development and significant in Germany. This news item has implications extending beyond that country. Jus  da  fax   18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Defer This could mean anything from that the YouTube is altogether blocked in Germany to that the YouTube has to pre-approve all content from/to Germany. But there are still appeals to exhaust, so let's wait until then. If YouTube is eventually blocked in a Western democracy, it would be rather noteworthy. --hydrox (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please thats clear POV. Brazil, India and SOuth Africa ar enot western but highly transparent democracries and freedoms. At any rate, this is all part of a govt-crackdown (in actual democracies") the world over. SOPA/PIA, wider european nanti piracy measures, India had a court case recently, googles new policies will allow state-ordained censorship. Nothing stands out.Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, both of you, Lihaas and Hydrox chill out. We are not a playing a game of ping pong where we can throw our views. Take it easy. Soviet King :  Talk or Yell  01:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just a suggestion/discussion. Dont think any of us were offended or fighting over it. Certianl i hold no ill will to that comment ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, my original source on the issue (local newspaper) was particularly misguided, claiming that only an appeal could save YouTube from unrealistic demands, making it sound like pulling out of Germany was the only sensible option left to Google. This well-informed source seems to disagree: YouTube is not going away from Germany, and this is merely a sideplot in deadlocked German record industry–YouTube royalty negotiations. Hardly of any major encyclopedic interest, at least for now. --hydrox (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: At this time. Not significantly important until court case is closed. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Agni V test launch

 * Support if and when the article is updated sufficiently. Nuclear-capable military developments in conflict regions are pretty major. GRAPPLE   X  03:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support- This is just as major as the North Korean launch was. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Article is now updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. The update looks good. --Tone 06:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whil i would obvious support with 2 voted in 2 1/2 hours is hardly any consensus yet. N need to be [selectively] trigger happy on postings.Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Its quite an adequate consensus; such a development is of utmost importance, and the article is well done. I don't understand why you keep insisting on waiting for days before posting. There is something called "stale news". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this was surprisingly fast. Only two votes were even taken, and while it's certainly noteworthy I don't know of "utmost importance" is quite accurate.  I don't think 2 hours and 2 votes is consensus for something on the front page. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 09:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the event is something of a rarity among countries (only 7 countries have been able to do this) then yes, the event is most certainly of "utmost importance". See the article please, and notice the international repercussions the launch has had a few hours after a successful launch. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * so where does he line be drawn? Its rather arbitrary to decide whats of "utmost importance{" t to one.Lihaas (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The line is drawn at WP:NOTBURO. We aren't in the business of drawing lines.  If you have reason to believe this shouldn't have been posted on the content of the article, or because it received insignificant news coverage, then show us that.  But if your only objection is that this happened too fast for your comfort, without any substantive objection, don't expect anyone to care much about your objection...  -- Jayron  32  01:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you can look at this item as having four supports when it got posted (nomination, two comments, and my support as I posted it). And the update is decent. Doesn't seem any premature, especially as there is still no opposition whatsoever. --Tone 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4? I see three supports incl. the nom...still was all done without much discussion in about 2 1/2 hours?
 * ahng on a minute: admin support because it was posted? Admins are not supposed to post what they support, that is not the role of an admni..Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, I had forgotten to write Support in my first comment. My mistake. Pardon me please. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record I'd like to praise Tone for the speed of posting. The article was in good shape, no argument against posting had been put forward, and crucially, he or she made the judgement that a convincing argument against the importance of a nuclear test was unlikely to be put forward. Collectively, we claim to be about being bold and judging things on strength of reasoning. We also claim not to be a bureaucracy or democracy. This posting showed that, at the very least occasionally, Wikipedia can be what it strives to be. —WFC— 19:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator's argumentation. Clearly a significant event. Nanobear (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL at the failure in soliciting drama in this one. – H T  D  22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the first time; Lihaas has very often tried to stall the posting of news on the same reason of "too fast" or"too little consensus" despite the importance of the news. I don't think Lihaas as yet understands that news is not meant to be kept for days in the refrigerator. Other users have also commented on Lihaas' insistence on certain matters. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First comment on content not editors NPA is blatantly uncivil.
 * Secondly what is "very often" the fact that people dont get to adjuge or have input...if you bother to READ what i said, i too supported it. I too comment about the red tag.Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to point out, but commenting on editors does not make the comment a personal attack automatically. Second, I have not personally attacked you in any way, only pointed out that your behavior is not conducive for the ITN section. And yes, I did read your support. Follow WP:AGF as well. All opposition to you is not necessarily a personal attack. Regards, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's enough, Ankitbhatt. You're reminded you were unblocked on grounds of civility mentorship, and it's best if you didn't even think of commenting about other editors. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support --Dweller (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First Solar

 * Oppose This is altogether too run-of-the-mill for ITN. 2,000 job losses is obviously very significant for the individuals concerned but on a worldwide basis this is a fairly routine, everyday kind of story. I'm usually fairly lenient towards non-IT business stories but this seems altogether lacking in broader notability. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment is this as big over in Germany as the Solyndra-gate was in the U.S? Did we even post Solyndra, which I would imagine is the U.S equivalent, and if we posted that then this would surely also qualify as being notable enough for ITN. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not convinced that this is front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 08:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Vanishingly unimportant outside the industry and area directly affected. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

[(Re-)Posted] Dick Clark

 * Weak Oppose.: ITN is not a memorial page and I can see virtually nothing sugnificant or unusual in his death, at old age. He wasn't a well known figure outside the US and his death is unlikley to have international impact.</S> (sorry for any spelling mistakes, on Tablet PC ¥_¥)--Τασουλα (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per rationale given by Tasoula. --RJFF (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Who? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose In agreement with the other editors in this section. I do not believe this person has the notability to be included on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 20:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unknown.--WaltCip (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Made the front page of The Guardian, Vancouver Sun Toronto Sun, and the Montreal Gazette websites. Truthsort (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unknown? He was one of the most influential pioneers in the history of popular music. Comparable to Ed Sullivan. Secret account 22:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've heard of the guy before (from watching Friends), so I agree he's not unknown, but he had nowhere near the impact/importance of Ed Sullivan. Jenks24 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Secret. Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support host of American Bandstand, helped careers of multiple musicians from across the world. Definitely comparable to Ed Sullivan Show. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  22:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support American icon. W. Stephen Lush 23:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlush2 (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose- Our main death criteria is international impact. His death did not have any impact on the world asides from making people sad. That is not significant. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure on the international impact of Wisława Szymborska, Rauf Denktaş, Václav Havel or Christopher Hitchens. They represent all the non ITN/R deaths posted to ITN since December. Oh, and they were all European (yeah ok you can argue Cyprus either way). *shrugs* --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hitchens was English-American, and only really prominent in America, but hey. GRAPPLE   X  01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're really doubting the international impact of Havel, I'd strongly urge to you read his article. Jenks24 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: He has a massive chain of media organizations. For example, on New Years' Eve, it's Dick Clark that hosts the ball drop in NYC (just an example). Many TV shows are from "Dick Clark Productions". How in the world can you not know who this is? Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because 94% of the world population lives outside the country where his New Year activities are of any cultural relevance and that production company broadcasts most of its output, possibly. An extraordinarily insular comment.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's unreasonable to assert that everyone should be familiar with Dick Clark. Whenaxis's message probably is an emotional overreaction to the equally unreasonable assertion that Clark was "unknown".  I certainly had to temper my response to that.  (Please understand that we're discussing an American entertainment icon.)  —David Levy 06:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was just a rebuttal as strong as the first argument that people had no idea who he was. "I don't know who he is", is not a valid reason. However, I provided reasons for why he is notable. And no, the New Year's celebrations are broadcasted worldwide. I'm sure the ball drop is internationally renown. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think "I don't know who he is" is invalid, surely you must agree that "How [...] can you not know who this is?" is an equally poor argument. Jenks24 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have evidence to support my opinion, at the very least. However, I suppose my rebuttal was just as bad as the first. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But your response amounted to an accusation of wilful ignorance against anyone who happens not to share your cultural history. That is very different from an admission that this individual lies outside one's cultural experience, with the reasonable implication that this will also be true for many others (essentially the response of Strange Passerby and WaltCip).  No amount of evidence of his fame within your sphere of experience invalidates the honesty of the admission of others, which you derided as implausible.  I stand by my charge of insularism.  Part of the problem lies in the proposer (possibly assuming that everyone shares his/her cultural experience) failing to present any rationale as to why they considered this individual to be worthy of posting at ITN, or to explain his importance.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenaxis has acknowledged that his/her remark was inappropriate.
 * Indeed, the nominator failed to provide an adequate rationale (or any rationale at all). As you know, this is a common occurrence.
 * I disagree with your interpretation of Strange Passerby's and WaltCip's messages (especially the latter). It's one thing to convey unfamiliarity with a person (as other users have done) and quite another to assume that said individual is "unknown".  That's every bit as insular as Whenaxis's response.  ("This person is famous in my culture, so how can anyone not know who he is?" and "I've never heard of this person, so he obviously isn't well known." are two sides of the same coin.)  —David Levy 06:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin McE, the same goes for them saying that they are assuming that everyone's cultural background is the same and should not know Dick Clark. I suppose that becoming accustomed to your culture, you assume that people know the same as you do, but obviously not. I'm not here to judge people's competency levels of the real world, I'm only here to provide my opinion. Though saying, "How in the world can you not know who this is?" is my own personal opinion and that people around in my country, Canada, knows who he is, or ought to know who he is, was just my opinion and does not constitute any valid reason for you to scrutinize me for saying so. I don't see you bombarding the others who merely stated their opinion with no valid evidence. There were several misconceptions coming into this argument for those who voted oppose. The nominator had not provided reasons why he is notable. Or the voters providing their opinion, merely didn't take the time to look at the article and see his notability. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral support: a popular media figure and front page news; oppose: limited to no international impact, no surprise an old man dies. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I was surprised to see this hadn't already been listed. His role in the development of Rock 'n' Roll and television including such things as MTV can't be overstated.  Their importance exists regardless of one's personal value judgements. "Who?" comments are ipso fact expressions of ignorance, which is not a wikipedia criterion. Lack of international impact implies the lack of importance of rock itselfμηδείς (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose. I know who Dick Clark is; but deaths on ITN are generally expected to be of international importance (such as heads of states like the recently-included Václav Havel), or unexpected due to their circumstances (Michael Jackson's murder or Osama bin Laden's assassination, for example). A broadcaster dying at 82 of heart problems isn't quite the same (and no, my opinion would not be any different if this were a European counterpart like Gay Byrne). GRAPPLE   X  01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Our own American Bandstand page claims that AB inspired other dance shows including Top of the Pops in the UK. This shows the internation influence and importance. Furthermore although he was old, he wasn't known to be in ill health so his death is still rather sudden and unexpected. If we can agree that Rock and Roll has cultural significance worldwide (and I hope we can), then Dick Clark, one of the first to mass market RNR in turn would have to be as well, wouldn't he? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm a Brit, and anyone who is interested in music of my generation knows who Dick Clark is (hence international influence); definitely worth a mention here.
 * I'm beginning to think this site is controlled by a bunch of 20-something beatnicks typing in their parents' basement when I hear "who" comments above. The man's career spans several decades. It appears the vapor-grade entertainment prevalent for the past 20 or so years (which no one remembers a year or so past peak) gets more attention on this site. Don't forget the "because he's American" penalty points either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.63.71 (talk • contribs)


 * Support. Excuse me if I'm being a bit ageist but I bet quite a few of the opposers are younger. If you were born in 1950 and you were from just about anywhere in the world and were wordly, you'd know exactly who Dick Clark was. What I am really saying is, you're just wrong but you don't know it. My American kids might say "who?" also. Just a random example.--108.54.27.24 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." You are making claims about other editors !vote reasoning without any evidence to back it up. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be so ridiculous. He's pointing out that comments such as "Who?" above are made by people who aren't familiar with how important this person was at a certain point in time, and hence should be ignored - and he's quite correct. Black Kite (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he's claiming that these people aren't familiar with how important he was at a certain point in time because of an age bias, for which he has no proof. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I opposed in full knowledge of who the man is, having already mentioned as much, and fall well within the age range being accused of ignorance. I think anyone, regardless of their age, is capable of making a judgement call on these things when they're already using a resource which makes finding the man's achievements available in a few clicks, but what do I know, I'm only 23. GRAPPLE   X  02:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. Bzweebl, let me put it a different way. Do you know who Christina Aguilera is? Do you think that most people all over the world do? Do you think that in 40 years those people who know her today will still know who she is? Do you think it unlikely that their children will not and would say "who?" and think she's just an American star? I hope the answer to these rhetorical questions is obvious and my point comes through, though the choice of comparison is not perfectly situated, i.e., Dick Clark while just as famous across the world in his time was a dynamic figure within multiple industries. If you feel like taking me to the woodshed for this comment, as apparently you did for my last, remember that I have socks older than you (or so I surmise).--108.54.27.24 (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I'm sorry if I offended you. Second, earlier I was just trying to remind you of the policy of the top of the page because I felt like you were violating it, and I'm sorry that somehow it ended up becoming a debate. It is no longer important at this point whether your arguments are valid, because I was not trying to dispute their validity, just keep you from making assumptions about other editors. I apologize that it turned into an argument; I didn't mean to "take you to the woodshed for your comment." <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We posted Leslie Nielsen and Peter Falk deaths and almost posted Harmon Killebrew not that long ago, and their impact is nowhere near Clark. Clark along with Ed Sullivan transformed popular music by introducing early rock and roll, R&B acts and so forth to their nationally televised television shows. He always been one of the biggest career boosters in music, getting Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Janis Joplin to popular mainstream among others. He helped integrate it by using black artists performing their original songs back in the 50s instead of using white artists, is an example of his impact. He just never jumpstarted The Beatles or The Rolling Stones careers unlike Sullivan, I read that Clark passed on The Rolling Stones, that's what preventing near unanimous support. We posted celebrities that made an iconic impact to culture despite old age and this is no different, and in fact much more deserving. Secret account 03:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He also hosted the most popular New Year's Eve TV program in the U.S. for decades, was among the best known American game show hosts, and produced such broadcasts as the American Music Awards (which he created), the Academy of Country Music Awards and the Golden Globe Awards. The article has not yet been substantially updated, but numerous notable persons have publicly commented on Clark's death and legacy (so there's plenty of material with which to work). Opposing the item is one thing, but comments along the lines of "Who?" and "Unknown." are patently ridiculous. —David Levy 04:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Commment I think some of the opposes here would make a lot of sense if they were to say, "I am familiar with the history of Rock 'n' Roll, with the history of popular culture in the 20th Century, with the history of TV Broadcasting, with the popularization of such artists as Chuck Berry, Simon and Garfunkel, Ike & Tina Turner, and Smokey Robinson, with the racial integration of artists and audiences on American television, with the history of game shows, with the history of broadcast New Year's celebrations, with payola scandals, and the like...and I have never heard of Dick Clark." That would be a helpful comment. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (after a significant article update occurs). Death criterion 3 isn't the relevant one; criterion 2 ("The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.") is.  Dick Clark was an extremely influential and famous person in the fields of music and broadcasting.  He's credited with helping to popularize rock and roll (our Dick Clark article quotes Los Angeles Times writer Geoff Boucher as stating that "with the exception of Elvis Presley, Clark was considered by many to be the person most responsible for the bonfire spread of rock and roll across the country in the late 1950s") and to foster racial integration on American television.
 * neutral while i wouldnt support this (As i do for other entertainment biz deaths other than Whitney Houston or Michael Jackson), thre is precedence on lesser known figures in the biz whove been posted.Lihaas (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you listed as the nominator? --RJFF (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Beats the heck out of me. Seems like the sig on the top copied a template from somethign i nom'd.Lihaas (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —David Levy 16:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "do not change this"!!! Grumble, grumble...i could have had my cake and eaten it too ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Extremely notable, very long career. I'd hate to even think bad faith but saying he's unknown is absurd in the extreme. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 06:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support He was the best head-in-a-jar in Futurama.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I saw this and my first thought was "He (was) still alive?" I spend most of my time working on Indonesia-related articles, but I still know who Dick Clark was. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So? More Supports than Opposes. So now what? Rhodesisland (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote and Wikipedia is not a democracy. --RJFF (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - a damn sight more notable than Davy Jones. Brit = Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ITN, "the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death". There is just one line. Therefore, the update is not satifactory, notability aside. --RJFF (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - can someone make a decision on this, if it is to be posted it would be best to post it today. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  12:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not yet ready, per RJFF. A deluge of supports won't get it posted if there's only one line about his death. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What more do you need to know? An old man died of a heart attack at age 82. What more detail is required? Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  13:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If he was really significant, there will be various reactions to his death, tributes paid etc. If you can't find anything of this type to add, then he probably wasn't significant enough. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See Henryk Górecki for a good example of the sort of content that can be added even in such cases (this was posted on ITN at the time). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated the article some more. Tributes and reactions to his death have poured in from the music industry, also from the US president, SEN john McCain, Ryan Seacrest ect. Sources are in the section under death in the article. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  14:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I initally balked as I thought he was a celebrity mainly good for New Years TV specials and the like; I hadn't known of his history in the formative years of the Rock music industry.  I agree saying he's unknown is pretty unfair; he's obviously unknown to a lot of people but that's the case with many celebrities.  Bob Dylan is unknown to many people in the world too.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a complete unknown internationally but ultimately fairly obscure outside of North America. The blurb would need to do a lot more to explain who he is - he doesn't have universal name recognition by a long way.  However, my oppose is based primarily on the update: there has been a lot of editing activity to the article in the last 48 hours, but the actual update (as opposed to re-drafting) amounts to three sentences, two of which are reactions as opposed to covering the actual event. I may be moved to reconsider if that is developed in substance - there's clearly a lot of interest in this nom - but right now there simply isn't anything worth highlighting on the main page. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
 * I agree that the update is insufficient, but nowadays, it's customary to support or oppose based on the event itself (with the assumption that the item won't be posted until the requisite update occurs, regardless of the amount of support received). —David Levy 16:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we have to take a balanced approach and consider the overall merits of the story. Considering the quality of the update is a key thing to consider there - ITN is not intended as a news source but to highlight newly updated content.  Restricting discussion simply to notability is putting the cart before the horse.  If we didn't consider article and update quality there would be nothing at all to discuss for ITNR noms. This has now had two days, over twenty editors updating the article, and ~180 edits.  That is enough shakedown time in my view and the update is still insufficient. If it hasn't happened by now I don't realistically see it changing in the next few days. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
 * I'm well aware that "ITN is not intended as a news source but to highlight newly updated content" (and probably have explained this more times than anyone else has). As stated above, I agree that the article hasn't been sufficiently updated.
 * You appear to have misunderstood my point, which is not that the update's quality shouldn't be discussed/evaluated here. (It absolutely should be.)  I'm merely noting that it's no longer customary to "oppose" an item's inclusion on the basis that the article update is insufficient.  It's common to note the issue (and express the opinion that an item shouldn't be posted until a better update emerges, as I did above), but the bold "support"/"oppose" comment is understood to refer to a hypothetical scenario in which the requisite update has occurred.  (If 100 users unanimously support an item, it still shouldn't go up unless and until the update criteria have been met.)  —David Levy 17:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose - not very well known outside America.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, unfortunately, during that period of time, globalisation was still in its infancy thus the cultural influence of America was still very limited to its own region and extremely close allies such as Australia and Britain. Much of the world did not see or experience the "influential power" of Dick Clark hence many of us perceive him as just another game show host or musician. YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's entirely understandable that many editors outside North America have little or no familiarity with Dick Clark. Likewise, there probably is (or was) an Australian of comparable background and stature with whom I possess little or no familiarity.  And if he/she were to die, I would support an ITN item's inclusion.  (The same, of course, applies to other countries.)  —David Levy 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support - I'm sure that outside of South America, the oil company YPF is unknown. I have no idea where East Timor is, as I'm sure is the case with much of the Western world. Just because somebody's influence was primarily North American (READ: He is well known beyond just the USA) does not mean that they are suddenly less important than somebody being elected to the head of the world bank (whooo, I'm sure the next time their name will come up anywhere is when they resign!). Dick Clark had a major impact on popular music, not just in America, but in Britain as well. Between the 1950s and 1970s, these two countries dominated 95% of popular music, and so something relevant to one of them has worldwide impact in this subject area. Dick Clark is an icon, not an American nobody. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dominated 95% of popular music in 15% or so of the world's regions? In the 1950s, the Soviet Russia and half of today's Europe were still strongly communist with no signs of weakness, God forbid someone bring America's capitalist media in, China followed suit. A very small percentage of Africa was even connected to the power grid, same can be said for South East Asia where numerous areas were still in war. Before oil dominated the United State's agenda, the Middle East had relatively little Western Influence despite military occupation in several countries there. During this period of time, the only exception where a band actually had worldwide influence is The Beatles. YuMaNuMa  Contrib 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're confusing popular music and music. Those countries didn't have popular music until very recently. I'd be surprised if many of them even had inspirational musicians that the country as a whole could recognize... And communism prohibits self-expression, so no music for you. Really, in conservative Britain and America, there was a great disdain against popular music like rock-and-roll (the movie Pirate Radio is nice historical recount of this atmosphere). Sex was breaking out into music, and the censors were working overtime. It was people like Dick Clark that brought these musicians to the bedrooms of the media-accessing world, against the wishes of the cultural elites. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clark's contribution to the British music scene can easily be dismissed: the idea that he was a towering figure here is wide of the mark - he's a virtual unknown and what recognition he has is purely in an American context. And this position that Eastern Bloc countries were somehow lacking in the arts is probably more based on ignorance than reality: Andrei Tarkovsky comes to mind immediately as someone who was at the very top of his respective field (film in that case). Or does it not count unless he was churning out mass-market Hollywood dross? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Not at all. But likewise, I don't believe that being a mass-marketed Hollywood drone takes away from one's notability in any way (nor does it add). I don't believe he was a towering figure in Britain or even in Canada, but he was certainly well known and he had an enormous impact (Britain listens to American music too, no?) on popular music. I don't believe Eastern bloc countries had popular music. Few if any had a national chart or authority until the last 20 years. It's not ignorance to know that socialism and communism started by burning artefacts of popular culture - records, books, newspapers, magazines, artwork. Everything! That's how it is pushed onto cultures: by removing the identity of that culture and rewriting history in favour of communism/socialism. Liberal arts and individual opinions were suppressed. This isn't to say that there were none... but certainly very very few. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm a Brit, and my initial reaction was "Who?". But it's clear that he was a very influential figure in his field, and I'd like to see a longer-range view of pop culture reflected here. I'd hope that a similar European figure would also be included in similar circumstances. But please, stop attacking the people who haven't heard of him: his direct influence over here was negligible. It's his wider impact that clinches it for me. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I may not agree, bu thats certainly sound reasoning and more so when compared to the silly "per X/nom"
 * bw- where did my nom go? ;(Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - While he seemed like an influential figure, the name doesn't mean much to me (or my whole generation, likely). If this is posted, please add to the blurb with what he's known for. Mamyles (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is to post, and so I have done so. If someone is able to update the picture, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll do it later when I have a chance to look over the instructions for posting pictures. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine without the picture. We don't have a good recent picture of Dick Clark. --  tariq abjotu  00:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * it's in an awful state. there are and there is a  on top of dick. there are entire sections with no references, example "Pyramid game shows" (three paragraphs), "Theaters" (one paragraph), "Radio programs" (four paragraphs), "Other media appearances" (four paragraphs), "Other television programs" (one reference for nine paragraphs), "Personal life" (one reference for nine paragraphs again). really shouldn't be placed so prominently on the main page of wikipedia in this condition. wouldn't happen with anyone else.


 * Agree with anon above, this needs to be pulled immediately for lack of references. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Article has been temporarily pulled due to orange tag - my apologies for not realizing it was an orange tagged when I posted it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If this is not the correct place to discuss the broader issue, I apologize, but I've become frustrated at the continual debate about posting INT blurbs regarding "famous" peoples deaths and feel I need to pose a question to clarify my understanding of the "guidelines" or to make a point if my understanding is anywhere near correct.
 * My understanding of the death criteria is that the person's death must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1.The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region. 2.The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.

3.The death has a major international impact that affects current events....

The criteria does not say the person must meet ALL of them nor is any special emphasis placed on number three "international impact". So why then is the international impact of the person the seemingly most important factor in most of the discussions about any particular posting? The criteria would seem, at least to me, that if a person is significantly important in his/her home country and particular field, he/she would then meet two of the three criteria and should be posted irregardless to how he/she meets criteria three.

Am I missing an overriding criterium or discussion that has superceded the posted three Death Criteria? If so, we really should change the posted criteria. If not, than the overwhelming focus on international impact really should be curtailed and not permitted to veto a nomination.

Again, I apoligize if this is not the correct area to address this broader issue, perhaps the ITN Talk page would be better; but since the issue has arisen again in such force I was moved to ask. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the debate is about his international impact on the field. Nowhere in the criterion does it say the "in his/her home country," as you mentioned. His impact on the field cannot be limited by geography because then they are not "widely regarded" as an important figure. I hope that helps. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But doesn't this part of criteria one, significant contribution/impact on the country/region, imply his/her home country? What other country/region would we be talking about other than that person's home country?? Furthermore the "international aspect is specifically mentioned in criteria three, so wouldn't it be redundant if criteria one wasn't about the person's home country? And in addition, the criteria says that only ANY ONE of the three is neccessary; no one should be more important than the others or carry more weight.Rhodesisland (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * An update of four sentences is still too slight to justify posting the death of a (notable) person on ITN. ITN is a project to highlight significant updates, not just to publish news that many users consider to be important. I would also like to remind admins that consensus is not the same as majority. --RJFF (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But again the criteria states recognizes the difficulty in defining how much of an update on a page is significant enough of an update and guides that a paragraph should be considered sufficient. By my definition, a paragraph is upwards of four sentences; so shouldn't four or so sentences be enough?Rhodesisland (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

2. Who, other than Whenaxis (the aforementioned Canadian) and possibly 108.54.27.24 (whose message focused primarily on editors' age) made comments along those lines? To what "Americans" are you referring? And why haven't you criticised the editors who assumed that Dick Clark was "unknown" because they hadn't heard of him? Does that reflect a "global view of things"? —David Levy 00:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2. I'm not defending Whenaxis's remark (which I criticised above). I'm asking you to cease the name-calling (which you repeated in your edit summary). 3. No, I don't "know exactly what [you] mean". You've stated that "some American editors" based their support on an assumption that "everyone all around the world already had the same knowledge of who Dick Clark was as the average American." I see one message largely fitting that description (but written by a Canadian) and another message (posted from an American IP address) along similar lines (but focusing primarily on perceived ignorance among young people, not on nationality). So I ask you again to please identify the multiple messages that you've attributed to Americans. —David Levy 04:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, article has been significantly updated with refs in all sections. Can this be posted again? Karl 334  Talk-  -Contribs  15:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Re-)posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that, all of these problems over these 'controversial' posts would be solved if we were to give way to a 'stickies box' section where we simply post the names of subjects that may be in the news without having to go into details about blurbs and repeated discussions over notability, significance, criteria and such. This would allow obviously notable (but heavily regional) events like the NCAA "March Madness" to appear on the main page and in my view does a great service to our readership, who are looking for articles related to current events of wide interest, while also satisfying on opposing editors who may believe that there is too much 'undue weight' given to certain events. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, a lot of these problems could be solved if some American editors learnt enough to take a more global view of things. I believed all along that it was right to post this, but some of the "arguments" in favour were so pathetic, and insulting, assuming as they did that everyone all around the world already had the same knowledge of who Dick Clark was as the average American. These editors actually create antagonism among non-Americans, rather than helping the case for posting. I winced when I read some of the support posts here, even though I agreed with posting. Do get a broader perspective, and be willing to present a decent argument to those who have never heard of some all-American hero. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been noted on many occasions, the behavior in question is not confined to Americans. Editors from around the world do the same thing, but you routinely single out Americans for criticism.  Even in this thread, it was a Canadian editor who expressed astonishment at others' unfamiliarity with Dick Clark, but you've nonetheless decided to blame Americans.  —David Levy 21:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As opposed to curt comments like "Who?" and "Unknown"? It seemed like you just took advantage of yet another chance to snipe at how insular Americans are, using your support of this news item as a defense against accusations of further anti-American sentiment. If you want to talk about things particular people said, go for it. But this "if Americans would just" line is tired and insulting, more insulting than assuming that people commenting here would do some cursory research before making a remark that doesn't address its newsworthiness. There are 300 million Americans. Probably ten of them posted here. Not all of them even said the same thing. Comment on what is presented, not on your apparently deep-seated bias against Americans. --  tariq abjotu  21:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're quite right to say "Not all of them even said the same thing". That's why I used the word "some". (Sorry if one was a Canadian. He's a dill too.) (Or "She", as the case may be.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Please refrain from name-calling.
 * Meh. You know exactly what I mean. And I think you are lowering yourself. You are a thoughtful, well-informed poster. You shouldn't be defending those who aren't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. I sincerely thank you for your praise.
 * That said, given that there was clearly no consensus above, under the current system of decision making I would still have to Oppose this, if only on procedural grounds. I also believe that honestly we need a higher standard of scrutiny for 'deaths' in ITN - in my view the only deaths that have really fit the criteria in recent years are Michael Jackson, Osama bin Laden, and Whitney Houston; even Vaclav Havel is debatable. Colipon+ (Talk) 17:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support - An icon has passed, and if some here don't know it, my respectful hope is that they will be big about it and learn from this experience. Of course Dick Clark's abrupt death should be on ITN. Jus  da  fax   18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * there is a pic...Lihaas (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe File:Dick Clark.jpg should be sufficiently recent and of sufficient quality to use if cropped. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Shows up a bit blurry on my screen, but usable. I'd say keep the Grammy in the cropped shot if possible. Jus  da  fax   19:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. —David Levy 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks great in the thumbnail shot. Thanks to all. Jus  da  fax   20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is in the wrong place in the running order. It belongs after Agni-V. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Note that the article received over 1 million hits in the two days following his death (a typical ITN-worthy story receives 10-20k). Hits don't equate with notability, of course, but there is clearly A LOT of interest in Mr. Clark. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. Jus  da  fax   20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

MalianPM

 * Comment Diarra's article has an OR tag, this should be fixed first. Otherwise, support. --Tone 07:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am rather sceptical. This is still part of the ongoing, unstable situation after the coup. This is an interim administration for a forty-days window until elections and the envisaged return to constitutional order. This provisional government still belongs to the aftermath of the coup which we have just featured on ITN three weeks ago. --RJFF (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I consider this to be unnecessary updating, as these people did not even take power in an election. Just a part of the coup. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We post unelected leaders and controversial removals as in hungrian prez.Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article Cheick Modibo Diarra has only been expanded by one sentence. That is not a sufficient update (one paragraph would be). --RJFF (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] YPF

 * Support- This has major ramifications in many countries and throughout the world and is one of the biggest business stories we will have for a while, so otherwise we would never be posting minority topics. I hope this nomination doesn't get degraded just because we already have the World Bank up. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. If posted, please alter the blurb to explain that YPF is an oil company – I has no idea what the acronym might stand for and I think many of our readers would be in a similar position. Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. edited blurl "re-nationalized" and "oli company".--Feroang (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Our material is getting really old, and no one has opposed this yet so I am marking it ready early in the discussion, although I welcome someone to oppose. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting, it seems support is here. --Tone 07:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * itn tag is not on the talk page...Lihaas (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add one, you don't need admin rights for that ;-) --Tone 08:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - obviously notable. If something similar were to happen in Europe-North America, this would be the biggest news story of the day. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] World Bank election

 * Support with the suggested blurb. It's irrelevant for ITN that there were non-American candidates etc. --Tone 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no prob (it is after all my nom and article) but with 1 support? Sudan below is ready tooLihaas (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Post support FWIW. Formerip (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the ITN tagis not on the the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

World Tomorrow

 * ? -- Ashish-g55 06:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Promoting a television show should have no place in ITN. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: promotion for a TV show. --RJFF (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOAPBOX, and not being what this part of the site is for. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not disputing here, but I am curious. Why is it that reporting on a new television show is considered "promotion" of that show, but reporting on a new president is not considered "promotion" of that president?  When we report on a horse race, are we not "promoting" that horse race, in your sense?  And where does the difference lie?  Is reporting the existence of something necessarily promoting it?  By that definition, we would also be "promoting" an earthquake by reporting it, and everything that we include on ITN would be a "promotion". I'm just curious what you mean by that. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's because a large amount of your proposed blurb is about how big the show is going to be in the future. That kind of speculative material is not suitable for an encyclopedia and is inherently unverifiable. It also reads like (poorly thought-out) promotional material. I also feel that (in general) broadcasters shouldn't be the story themselves; if the programme breaks any big stories in the future, it could be mentioned then. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. My description was highly inadequate. I have updated it further, and here is a fuller explanation:


 * Comment. There are three notable events that coincide here. The airing of a new controversial international TV show is perhaps the least notable.  A more notable event is that this that the leader of Hezbollah, which is listed as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. the U.K. and other countries, has given his first interview with the West in over six years.  And the third notable event is Nasrallah's announcement "he would act as a mediator in the Syrian conflict" (BBC).  Several articles will therefore have to be significantly updated in an event that has been covered on ever major news channel across the world: the Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah articles, the Julian Assange article, and the new article for The World Tomorrow, which will not remain as a "stub-class" article for long.  Gregcaletta (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your predictions for the future of the article to be just as speculative as for the future of the show. And while I dare say the show may be reasonably notable (and thus my AfD for it may well fail), the simple debut of a TV show is not notable. Did we run and ITN for the BBC show Hardtalk? Not as far as I know. This isn't really news as we know it; it's people talking about the news. The frequency of the interviewee's interviews with 'the west' (is Russia the west?) isn't exactly compelling evidence of the show's newsworthiness. If Nasrallah's announcement about acting as a mediator is noteworthy, let's have a story about that separately; but I'm not convinced that it is - there's no evidence that anyone except Nasrallah regards his intervention as interesting or at all likely to succeed. And really, don't delude yourself: this has not happened on 'every major news channel across the world' - this is primarily the work of RT, which can hardly be regarded as a reliable or unbiased source. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by "every major news channel across the world". You must be ignoring the links I posted to BBC, CNN, The Guardian, AFP etc.  There have also been articles in the New York Times and, need I repeat myself, every major news channel across the world. Look it up.  Gregcaletta (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nasrallah's announcement is the lead aspect of a lot of these stories. If you want to write a separate ITN nomination for that, go for it. I'd still oppose it myself, but I think it has a lot more merit than all this absurd puffery for Julian Assange. Once again: "TV show launched" is fundamentally not real news. A lot of the reporting that is not about Nasrallah is in the 'people' sections of these news outlets: they are reporting on the entertaining behaviour of a narcissistic blond suspected rapist, not proclaiming that this TV show is a major breakthrough in our lives. And repeating a claim does not make it true; does anything in the stories actually support your contention that the launch of the show is itself newsworthy? The burden lies on you to demonstrate this with facts, not wild assertions. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I had the same reaction as Ashishg55. How is this ITN material? <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose In agreement with the oppose votes above, I find this nomination completely lacking in credibility. We have not promoted a television programme in this way through ITN at any time that I can remember. We certainly have not promoted the launch of a specific person's new career move. It has no credibility as an item of "news". This is a press release, and as such falls in the same category as 'Apple releases new moving picture frame". doktorb wordsdeeds 03:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment thats one giant ass blurb by the way... that alone can take most of ITN -- Ashish-g55 11:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose now if we had cut it to something like this: Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, appears in his first interview with the West in six years, in the first episode of The World Tomorrow. I might support. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

 * No suggestion at this point, it's on ITNR though. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  12:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd need some text added to an article, the article List of winners of the Boston Marathon has been updated in the tables, but we'd need a few sentences about the 2012 edition. The blurb when we have a target article in a decent state, should read "In the 2012 Boston Marathon XXX was the fastest man and YYY was the fastest woman." or something like that. -- Jayron  32  14:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] East Timor election

 * Oppose. This is an election of a very small country with negligible effect outside itself and perhaps neighboring Indonesia. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose all other 'small country elections' on principle. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You won't get an "oppose" past Lihaas. We've all tried. We've all got the scars doktorb wordsdeeds 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit. We can air this grievance with an 'uninvolved admin' in that case. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content Doktorb not contributiors. The reason this tired arguement of oppose is overules is because it is ITNR...and the arguement used by the first oppose was created by him despite consensus against it. (it is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what he claims (see the last selection at the link which states its per IDONTLIKE it))Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not true. As I said before, there was never a community consensus for posting small country elections, posting every election, or even posting elections in general. Someone decided that should be the rule and slapped it onto ITN/R prior to having a formal discussion about it. The burden should be on them to show that this consensus exists, not the other way around. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * East Timor isn't a "very small country". It has more than a million inhabitants. Once adequately updated, it should be posted. --RJFF (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point here is that I think country's elections should be judged on their individual merits, just like every other article that goes through ITN/C. Only if we reasonably anticipate that such an election will pass ITN/C every time do we establish that it should be on ITN/R. Here, a case can actually be made for the East Timor elections on ITN/C (that it is a young democracy with significant military influence and that the election is 'pivotal' in the stability of its gov't etc) - but editors should make that case instead of borrowing legitimacy from ITN/R. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case abolish ITNR alltogether for spots et al. At any rate, thefactthat EVEYR discussion repeated every so often results in disapproval of an arbitrary measure is reason enough that consensus by the community deems the UN sovereigns as ITNRLihaas (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it that you oppose posting this just to prove a point, even though you actually think it is relevant? How about WP:POINT? You complain about posting elections generally without judging their individual merits and then you say that you "oppose all (...) 'small country elections' on principle", obviously without judging their individual merits. Not very consequent, is it? --RJFF (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not that. Had the nominator focused on the merits of the election itself in this nom, I (and other editors) may be convinced that it is worthy of posting, provided that the article is well-written and "of wide interest". Upon reviewing the article itself I would say that I am on the fence about whether this should be posted, leaning towards a "no" since the article is not exactly 'quality', and I don't see this generating much "Wide interest". But otherwise relying on invoking ITNR to post articles without any critical standard of scrutiny is nonsense. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support once ready. I'm not interested in Wikipedia personality politics; this is a sovereign nation, recently independent, and its own politics are newsworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Colipon. Unless there are more ramifications to this. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Not only is this ITN/R (which is obviously not good enough), but it is also an election that has attracted considerable international media attention. East Timor has only gained independence ten years ago and is still struggling with the painful aftermath of the war. Against this backdrop, this presidential election can be considered an important crossroad decision, probably having a determining impact on the future of the country. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This election is ten times more notable than any other minor election we post, as RJFF pointed out, and Colipon seems merely to be moving the discussion about ITNR here, even citing a discussion where it was determined that there was no consensus to change current policy. We need to respect ITNR and not deem it worthless without community discussion. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reason why we post elections for every country recognised by the United Nations is to avoid any form of bias and also, to argue the merits of a country per se is a complete waste of time. One may go past decades of history to determine whether that country is "newsworthy" or not. Also the number of representatives for that country on Wikipedia can also sway votes. For example, New Zealand is a fairly small nation however there are many New Zealanders here on Wikipedia who are able to advocate their support for the posting of New Zealand elections as oppose to a nations like East Timor where there probably won't any Wikipedian representing it. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, needs to be promoted on the front page.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated fuklly, only th e result needs confirmation bby a court and the large margin wont change drastically so the winner is affirmed. Someone mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. My assertion earlier was inappropriate, I strike that from the record. The article is not bad. I wish the references would be fixed using some automatic tool. I appreciate the new 'analysis' section and I think there is more work to be done to make the article more presentable to the readership as a main page item. But otherwise I withdraw my earlier point that this event itself is not notable. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The only opposition is gone. There is definitely consensus to post now. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 23:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. —David Levy 04:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Norway terror trial

 * Question- Is there a precedent for posting the start of significant trials? If so, count me as a support. Otherwise, let's wait for the verdict. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as Bzweebl said above, I would like to wait until a verdict is reached. --   Luke      (Talk)   03:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the verdict is reached, per our longstanding precedent.  Swarm   X 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you link to this precedent you speak of?  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The start of the trials is not ITN-worthy. The verdict might be though. --RJFF (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Forced to concur with your oppose. The verdict will definitely be ITN-worthy, though. DS (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. This is currently the top story showed by google news, with over 4,500 newspapers/websites reporting on it. But I'm not sure about precedents when reporting on trials.VR talk  12:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, Sticky. It is a topic of wide interest (although I wish the article was in slightly better shape). Honestly, I think we should make more use of stickies for things like this - where our readership is probably looking for a good comprehensive article on the topic to escape the disparate news journalism but cannot find it since the first Google result for "Breivik Trial" is not Wikipedia. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The trail itself might be interesting and oddly addictive to watch, but ITN cannot be used to scatter breadcrumbs through the development of a news story. Hopefully this has already been posted through "Current Events", where I think it's a better 'fit' in the early stages. The front page needs conclusions more than it needs opening speeches, so for that reason, it's a no from me doktorb wordsdeeds 03:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per per Bzweebl. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Taliban spring offensive

 * Support I think this is significant enough to post, once an article is ready for it. The attacks were spread throughout Afghanistan, and were focused on embassies of several countries, and the Afghanistan Parliament building. Despite not being very successful attacks, the intent of the attacks is significant, and it does show that the Afghan security forces can handle attacks without aid from NATO forces. However, the blurb is too long, and should be shortened to "Taliban insurgents launch coordinated attacks on central Kabul, Afghanistan." The blurb may also need to be changed as more details get released. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support-This definitely seems significant enough, particularly as it is multiple attacks we are reporting. I have been waiting for an article, and the newly created one seems to be sufficient. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Major series of attacks. Article could do with some meat though. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending a suitable article and a non-sensationalist blurb. (Something roughly along the lines of A series of attacks across Afghanistan leave X dead and Y injured is all that's necessary.)  Swarm   X 06:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing is I'd like to see the blurb somehow reflecting the multitude, scope and top-level nature of many of these targets. As I gather the casualties were not substantial, but the targets were highly significant. __meco (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops.. the casualties have risen considerably since I was last updated. They are noteworthy also. __meco (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the article's job, not the blurb's&mdash;our purpose here is to showcase articles, not to report news or to convey how significant a news item is. There is no need to say "attacks on A, B, C, X, Y and Z" when you can say "attacks across Afghanistan". I say this with no offense intended, but the proposed blurb is absurdly long.  Swarm   X 10:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - These attacks are good ITN material. Serious in scope. Heard this on the US nationwide CBS radio news. Jus  da  fax   06:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article should be a bit longer, the blurb a bit shorter - then it's ready to post. --Tone 12:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Article looks bulkier now. Agree with Swarm's blurb - we can also add "co-ordinated" to provide further emphasis if required. Good to post ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks ready, and it's getting old anyway. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been marked as ready for nearly 24 hours now. Could someone please post it, before it gets completely stale? Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. —David Levy 04:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

NW Pakistan Prison Raid

 * I've just removed it from the article: much of the text was only slightly changed from the news stories it had been taken from, and other material either wasn't directly supported by the sources or had been edited to put a slant on the claim (eg, the article stated that "Pakistani officials claimed that the heavily armed Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan forces entered the prison complex in cars and pickup trucks" which implies some doubt about their account which wasn't in the BBC story used to reference this which says that "Officials described" this as having occurred). Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The factual nature of the news articles didnt leave much room for creativity. And the changes I did make are perceived by you to be unsourced/biased (although I fail to see it). In any case, the update could have been improved or tagged for improvement rather than being deleted. I cant be bothered to rewrite it now, lets hope someone better equipped is. Cheers. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Laurence Olivier Awards

 * Support once fully updated. As noted in the nom a little more prose would be welcome.  I suggest leading with the best actoress(es) winners rather than the normal best play/best musical awards here, since that is the one the media coverage is focusing on.  Apparently the youngest (joint) best actoress is the youngest ever Oliver winner. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose until article is fully updated. I know nothing about these awards so I can't really do it myself without being too reliant on a few references, but the update definitely needs prose. I would hate to miss an ITN/R piece of news to go by because of a poor article update. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid I don't really have much of an idea as to where prose would be added. I'm also afraid that it's too late for it to be on the main page at this point but if someone could help me with this page to serve as a template of sorts for the future, it'd be very appreciated. Therequiembellishere (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Grand National
Wow- I had no clue what the Grand National was, but that sounds pretty intense. With so much crazy action happening in the race, I think your blurb is sufficient. The detail you added about the closest ever finish seems fine, and I think if you mentioned the two fatalities in the race it would be favoring that over other notable occurrences. The article update is significant, so I labeled it ready. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 01:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we add "horse race" at least for those unfamiliar with the event? hbdragon88 (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. In fact, the lead of the article uses "Grand National horse race". Jenks24 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. —WFC— 14:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. ITN/R and the article is sufficiently updated. Jenks24 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I like the "closest ever" part of the blurb (by a nostril, in the end, wasn't it?). Alas like most Brits this weekend I made my one and only trip to the bookies and came away with nowt. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can an admin come post this? It's overdue for more than a day. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

100 years since Titanic disaster

 * Oppose Anniversaries are non-events. It's a certainty for On This Day but inappropriate for ITN. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
 * It's actually Today's featured article/April 15, 2012. The same event is only shown in one main page section so it was removed from On This Day. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per Crispmuncher's reasoning. --RJFF (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just an anniversary. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Try in "On This Day". There is no requirement to put it within news stories and headlines doktorb wordsdeeds 06:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Summit of the Americas

 * Support - Important hemispheric meeting facing significant issues. Article in decent shape. All in all, ITN-worthy. 08:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Jus da  fax


 * Support: Notable conference. And also as per nominator. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now - A periodic conference taking place as scheduled for politicians to meet and chat is not really ITN-worthy till they make important decisions and publicize them. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This. They should release something (like an agreement) first before this gets posted. – H T  D  11:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose - atleast until something out of the ordinary happens. Its otherwise just a summit.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We post BRICS and G20 and APEC evenLihaas (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: per PFHLai and Howard the Duck. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 12:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This is on ITNR, after Lihaas added it just hours ago after bitching about 2 weeks of discussion, if you call one reply as a "discussion." – H T  D  12:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This from someone who bitches about waht WP:IDONTLIKEIT
 * What I don't like is the way this was sneakily added to the ITNR list after a two-week, two-person discussion. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this nomination until the summit has been consummated.. – H T  D  14:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose False nomination. As HtD as informed the room, Lihaas has added this to ITN/R by virtue of a two-week old stale discussion, in which only one other person responded. Not good enough. Not consensus. So as this is NOT ITN/R, and CANNOT be treated as such on this page, the judgement has to be the usual view on notability and importance. On which this fails both doktorb wordsdeeds 12:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support How is this any different than the other summits we post? <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   13:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- Honestly, what is diminishing about this compared to the recent BRICS conference we posted? All of the above arguments are against summits in general, and are invalid as we have an indubitable precedence to post notable summits regardless of their results. I would like to see an argument as to why this summit particularly is of lesser importance as opposed to ranting about the sneaky way this was added to ITN/R. I request that this discussion be reopened. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference was that the other summits were probably at ITN/R (for better or for worse, I have a sneaking suspicion on how they got on the list), so it was senseless to oppose them; this one was sneakily added so there's a reason to oppose this. When this is posted at the start/while the summit is ongoing, it's akin to posting a sports topic at the start of the preseason. Sure, anyone can argue that it's like rocket launches, but launching per se is a significant achievement, unlike holding a regularly-scheduled summit (indeed, when a summit like this is cancelled/postponed, then that becomes news). – H T  D  02:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care about how this was added to ITNR. That is irrelevant to the discussion. Your logic seems to be based on the fact that if a summit is not on ITNR, it doesn't belong on ITN, and that since in your opinion summits should not be on ITN because of their occurrence. That is true, but this is an exception because we never confirmed that it shouldn't be on ITNR. We need to discuss this on its merits, not how it was added to ITNR. I want an argument which states why this summit does not belong on ITN when others do that is not based on ITNR, as there hasn't been a consensus that this definitely shouldn't be on ITNR. Until then, no substantive arguments have been brought why this should not be posted or not be put on ITNR; merely about the fact that its initial posting on ITNR was unreasonable. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As what I've said earlier, the summit has to release something (an agreement, accord or whatever) before we can even discuss the merits of the summit per se. What I didn't say is that if this is not at the ITNR list, then it shouldn't be posted, nor if this is not ITNR-worthy. If it does release something, then we should begin discussion on this. – H T  D  03:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If a summit has to release something to be notable, why did we post so many other summits only on the basis of their occurence? For example, our blurb for the BRICS summit was "The fourth BRICS summit takes place in New Delhi." That is nearly identical to the nomination we have today, yet no one had an issue with it then. And seeing as this most certainly won't get posted, would you be willing to discuss it again when a report is released? I feel that the actual event is more notable than the release and the news may be stale by the time information comes out. Let me know what you think, although if you feel that you have expressed your opinion and are standing by it I don't mind. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason why nobody bothered to comment on the BRICS summit was because I think it's on the ITNR list (not sure on this), plus, still not checking, the ITNR list says the opening should be enough. That's why nobody opposed.
 * I do not oppose this, heck I'm indifferent, but they should release something once the summit is over, right? We shouldn't post things when they had not done anything. If they don't release something, that means that they haven't accomplished anything. It that's news, that for the others to decide. – H T  D  04:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that if it is on ITNR it just has to happen but if it is not then something has to come out of it? If that is the case, that would be unreasonable because it was never determined that the Summit of the Americas should not be on ITNR in the future, only that the way it was initially put on the list was unfair. A discussion could show that it should belong on ITNR, so for now we need to discuss on its merits. I would like to reinforce that at this point it should not matter whether the summit is on ITNR. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not on ITNR, we'd discuss it on its merits. It currently has no merits since nothing has come out of it. Now as for the other summits, they were listed on ITNR and ITNR allows for opening of summits, whether or not they've even discussed anything. That means we have no precedence to look up to, since (I figure) most summits nominated were at the ITNR list, so they'd be listed no matter what (unless of course on the hopefully (currently) mandatory update (such as the summit has begun, for the previous ones). – H T  D  14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. I'll wait for a more thorough ITNR discussion before trying to push this one through without any results. Thanks for discussing. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 14:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All thiscomingfrom someone who UNILATERALLY WITHOUT DICUSSION ADDS WHATHESEES FIT?Lihaas (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

[Ready] South Sudan-Sudan unrest

 * Comment There has been sporadic fighting at the border for some time already. --hydrox (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As flattered as i am by the recognition of that article...i changed to the other more pertinent article. Its somewhat updated to the ast few days and Heglig that was a big event not posted. However the article needs some reorganisation, at least in April, with 1 sentence paras. Cleaned it up and marked as updated. Ready to postif consensus deems soLihaas (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sporadic fighting has been happening in this area for years, long time before South Sudan independence, and long since. Nothing here suggests front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 08:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeha, but it wasnt an inter state war with UN repercussions as well as other supranational bodies asi t now. More releveant because independence was supposed ease conflcit and its changed nothingLihaas (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Guinea Bissau coup

 * Wait. Calling this a coup d'état now is remarkable crystal-balling. News sources are only calling this a "coup attempt" as of now. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Army's in control, no idea where the write of the former civilian leadership is as they theselves are not known...AND reports that Carlos Junior is dead. Seems like the ivorian election crisis at the leadstLihaas (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral Using Strange Passerby's logic on this. Let's not be too hasty. I'll change my vote if the situation changes doktorb wordsdeeds 12:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --bender235 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The acting president is arrested, so it is a coup, not an attempt.Oleg-ch (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait. The acting president doesn't seem to have been arrested, but there are conflicting reports as to whether the prime minister has been arrested. Formerip (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait As noted above the situation is unclear which is frequently the case with coup attempts as communications are disrupted and different factions make claims that may or may not be factually accurate. I also disagree with Oleg-ch's analysis: for a coup to be considered successful it is necessary to assert control of the machinery of government.  That does not require the capture of leaders nor indeed does the capture of leaders indicate a successful coup: in isolation all that amounts to is a hostage situation or the taking of a prisoner. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Well ITN also seems to beleive a revolution happens one moinutre after the resignation of a president. A la Egypt and Yemen
 * update article has more added now with clarity. The junta has already called for a national unity government and met with other political leaders with the cofnirmation that the civilian leadership is under arrest.Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks to me like a coup per WP:DUCK. Good article. Not at all convinced waiting is needful. Jus  da  fax   09:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * the coup with junta establishment et al happened AFTER the north korean failure...anyhoo, this was a grand old mistake to nominate. not that itn hlelps anything on WP...DYK is much more fruitful
 * For the record, thre is a picture of gOMES jUNIOR IF you seek to change the pic and can mention that hes been arrested as the prez candidate with the lead in the eletionLihaas (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] North Korean Rocket Launch
It seems like north korea has launched their long range rocket. No reports from anywhere yet... it may have failed. Not ITN material yet, but keep an eye out. -- Ashish-g55 23:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It failed, so probably not really ITN HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support because media headline for more than a week--Reader1987 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because nothing actually happened doktorb wordsdeeds 10:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - has received alot of attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if only because it indicates that the previous talks between the United States and North Korea to discontinue the latter's nuclear program failed.--WaltCip (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's really taking sides. Any claim this was part of a nuclear program is more propaganda driven than fact driven. I admit that I just don't know. So should you. (And this isn't the place to debate what MIGHT be.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support when updated. This is a complex argument so for clarity I've broken my observations down into numbered statements in case anyone wants to refer back to them.
 * 1) It is incompatible with NPOV to adopt a position based on the veracity or otherwise of North Korea.  Precisely what was launched is a matter of controversy and the decision reached must reflect that.  However, for the purposes of analysis we can consider each position in turn.
 * 2) If we accept the North Korean claims as accurate:
 * 3) This is covered by ITNR's Space exploration/Launch failures criteria.
 * 4) Notability is augmented on top of that because it is the first steps of another country towards space-faring status.  Although the provision for first indigenous launches refers only to successful launches it is clear that this is something that is considered to add notability.
 * 5) If we consider this to be a veiled weapons test:
 * 6) The Space exploration/Launch failures criteria still applies.  Although it clearly is not the intention of the way ITNR is drafted this was a rocket; further, an ICBM is technically a space vehicle.  Wikilawyering perhaps, but that is what ITNR says.  Given the ambiguous nature of its status in any case I would say we have enough to legitimately assert it for the actual story.
 * 7) The element of subterfuge adds notability rather than detracts from it.
 * 8) This has been widely reported in the global media as a lead story.  This is not some regional or national item struggling to attain wider notability.
 * 9)  However, as yet I don't see a substantive update anywhere.  We've got a bit at Taepodong-2 and a few other bits and pieces elsewhere, but no one article that I can see that has what we would consider to be a minimum update. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Update: the substantive article appears to be at Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 which is quite well developed, more than enough of an update.


 * Support: Notability:As Crispmuncher mentioned ITN/R says notability is already satisfied for "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". Both DPRK and the "responsible countries of the developed world" have confirmed that the launch has failed. Update Quality: Article far exceeds minimum requirement. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've been convinced. It deserves posting because of ITNR's Space exploration/Launch failures criteria. But definitely not because it might have been a nuclear missile (or precursor to one). That position breaches so many Wikipedia guidelines it's laughable. Even though they might support posting, as I do, I would expect a posting Admin to ignore such political trash. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposed blurb "North Korea attracts international condemnation after the launch of Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3, which explodes 90 seconds into flight."
 * We have a free use image at . Crispmuncher (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support now we have a blurb; can't visit any international news source without reading about this. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  04:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Marked as ready, update seems fine. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   04:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sorry to ruin the party, but isn't all this coverage because its North Korea doing a launch amid all the sanctions imposed on it? Shouldn't this be mentioned somehow in the blurb?  Lynch 7  14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, according to HiLo, that's a "laughable" violation of NPOV. Best not to bring it up for his sake.--WaltCip (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that perspective could be written objectively, there would be no problem. What IS a problem is that the media has disproportionately used NK actions as part of fear articles for years, and especially since Dubya's insane declaration of the Axis of evil. We really have to avoid any of that rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was considering taking this to the talk page for further comment. I agree with HiLo's scepticism. We appear to have nodded through, as a community, a nomination which amounts to "North Korea doesn't do something". I can't figure out if we've done so to make a point, or just through a POV interpretation of available evidence, or just through a spike in the amount of fluoride in the drinking supply. It's a very odd nomination and an unfathomable vote doktorb wordsdeeds 21:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Cease-Fire

 * I am rather sceptical. A ceasefire during which "sporadic outbreaks" occur is not actually a ceasefire. And where is the update? --RJFF (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral I will be happy to change my vote based on what happens, taking RJFF's attitude on this. Interesting, notable but....we have to wait. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

 * Obviously we should wait for the indictment to actually be filed, if indeed one is going to occur. Second, the best way to analyze the newsworthiness in this case is via the nature of the controversy. Civil rights activists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made an incredible amount of noise over this case. Being newsworthy figures themselves, they will of course propel this story to the international circuit. This in turn has sparked a number of reactions from other activists with similar agendas. Now, in the midst of all of this, there is so little that we actually know about the case itself, due to the fact that information and evidence of varied nature has been trickling out extremely slowly. Thus we have a great deal of contention between people who believe that George Zimmerman is guilty, and between those who contend he acted in self-defense. So, I agree that this is an extremely controversial and high-profile case. Here's my question: should we post the indictment, or wait for a verdict?--WaltCip (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We post events, not speculation. At best this is highly premature. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Of course I'm saying that we should post this right now when the indictment still haven't happened, but once it's announced it should be considered, thus the nomination. Secret account 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We consider the nominations made here, and the nominated story is a rumour. If you want us to consider something else nominate something else. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC).
 * We also don't need to be jerks. It's abundantly clear to anyone not trying to make a point what he is referring to. The event is believed to occur less than three hours after his initial nomination, and just over an hour from now. With an event believed to occur within such a short time frame that is not on WP:ITN/R, it is entirely reasonable to discuss the merits of the news story before it actually happens, so we don't have the unfortunate circumstance where an article has received an adequate update but we have a protracted discussion long after about its newsworthiness. No one is suggesting this get posted before it happens, if, of course, it does happen. --  tariq abjotu  20:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, why nominate something not expected to be posted? Nom's are expected to be a support from the poster.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose No particular reason that I know of to post this right now. And the article is one of the biggest piles of fragemented, irrelevant, biased bullshit ever seen on Wikipedia, including its name. (And when I say "biased", I mean in many directions, depending on which fragment one looks at.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per almost everything above. No more needs to be said until someone actually brings a reasonable support argument. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per above. -- Plasma Twa  2  22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. Provide some reasons. Right now the only person who has provided a reason for not posting this is HiLo. And his assertion that the article is biased or otherwise poor is hard to see. The article is far better written and well-sourced than most articles on Wikipedia, let alone most of the articles we post on ITN. It doesn't have any orange tags. So, unless one of you (all of you) can be more specific about why you think the article is poor, or what "above" you're actually agreeing with, I'm inclined to just discount every one of the oppose statements presented so far. None of these have provided any valid reason. --  tariq abjotu  22:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose it because the indictment is trivial and has no significance until the actual verdict is delivered. I think there will be clear consensus that the verdict will be notable and we are not a news ticker that posts every update to stories, so it seems unreasonable to post this when it is merely an intermediate phase of a piece of news. We should only report on news when everything has been completed and confirmed. In this case the process is still ongoing. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the trial and verdict is probably going to take years in a case such like this, and we aren't talking about some missing or dead white girl here, the case heated up a rather controversial subject in world history which is racism and gun standards. Just about every major politician spoke about the case and it's the top story in CNN every day since it broke. 74.233.37.172 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the significance of the case, only the ITN worthiness of this particular phase of it. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am also disputing the ITN worthiness of this case. I do not see anything significant about Zimmerman being charged at this point other than it comes after weeks of massive public discussion (which is not good enough for ITN). At best, this is tabloid news and Zimmerman's arrest does not even represent the final news item that is going to come out of this case. When this goes through the court system and results in a major change to US law (which I don't think will happen, but you never know) then it would be good enough for ITN, but not now. As it is now, the story is of tabloid interest. Quality of the article is irrelevant in this case, because a good article doesn't make unimportant news important. -- Plasma Twa  2  01:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to address the many poor aspects of the article at its Talk page, and have been shouted down by bigots who obviously feel they have some sort of ownership of it. It's a recent and controversial topic, involving racism, youth culture, national politics, gated communities, America's extreme (by world standards) gun laws, and the unusual (by world standards) "stand your ground" law. The article is still very unstable, with 70 edits in the past 24 hours. Editors continuously push POVs that just wouldn't exist in a more mature article. There has been no legal resolution, and it's unknown when there will be resolutions to the other issues. Sourcing "facts" in that article just means finding someone else in the US media who shares your POV. It proves nothing. Some editors succeeded in hiding from the title the critical fact that Martin is dead. I gave up editing and discussing because of the aggressive and bullying culture that has evolved around the article. Nobody should ever feel the need to do that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure yet what my actual position on the nomination is, but I don't think the indictment is a trivial development, since there's been so much controversy and pressure over the lack of an indictment. In some ways its the culmination of the story, with the actual trial being a post-script (for some campaigners, I guess the line is that justice demands the suspect be tried, but not necessarily that he be found guilty). I don't know enough about the case to really judge the article, but I do get the impression that there have been a lot of POV issues relating to it. Maybe these are resolved, but I'd be nervous about front-paging an article about an ongoing criminal process unless we are very confident that it is accurate and balanced. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. That was what I was hoping to hear. --  tariq abjotu  23:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: I dont agree with local crime stories being posted on ITN. If this triggers any significant event, then such event may be assessed for notability and update quality and then posted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the good reasons explained above. There is a dangerously rich thread running through the article and its nominations, tasting of bias, prejudice, and drum-thumping point making. At the very core of the nomination is the story itself, and its small, regional, insignificant, notable only to a part of a country not even to an entire region never mind the world. There are issues with the article itself brought here which may never be resolved if the tone of the comments posted here are any guide. In short - no. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (Strong) Support I rarely provide supports or opposes on nominations, but I feel so strongly about this I will post. First off, let me say as a point of order that I disagree with the concept of Strong Opposes and Supports. Yes, yes, I know this isn't about votes, but we know those bolded words amount to a lot in the eyes of whoever ends up reviewing the nomination. So, let me reiterate my position that you can't make your stance (Support or Oppose) stronger: you can only make it weaker than the standard Support/Oppose. However, I've decided to make mine a "Strong Support", primarily so that whoever reviews this doesn't take my opinion as meaning less simply because I omitted the word Strong.
 * Okay, with that out of the way... I think most of the opposers fail to understand the magnitude of this case. This is not a "local crime story". At the very least, this is a national crime story, covered almost non-stop for the past month in the U.S. news, in part because of its implications on race and because of the renewed interest in "stand your ground" laws across the country. From what I have gathered, this has also been covered in many international news sources as well, perhaps because it's great fodder for the "look at those crazy American laws". So, this is a crime with effects across the U.S., and interest from around the world.
 * Now as to whether this is appropriate now or at the verdict, I say, why not both? I'm not pre-supporting a post of the verdict, but indictments in some cases are on their own notable. Think about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case, for example. Obviously, the political implications are not as grand in the Trayvon Martin case. But for the past month, the furor hasn't necessarily been over "Why hasn't this guy been convicted yet?", it's "Why hasn't he even been charged with anything?" So, this is truly the culmination of this story. He has been charged with the highest crime that could conceivably be applied to this case (first-degree murder is obviously not applicable). So, while the wheels of justice turn, you are likely to see the nationwide protests and interest rapidly wane. When the verdict comes, especially if it's acquittal, we will probably see another big news story, one that likely will be postable. But, that's for another day. We're not going to post every gory detail of this case, but one around now, coinciding with its culmination, and one a year or so from now, at its conclusion, is not too much. We are not (clearly) limited in the number of stories we can post to ITN, so this worry about "if we post this now, we can't post this later" is misguided.
 * As for the quality of the article, again, I don't see the issue. Clearly, it's not featured quality, and it has its issues. But this high bar for articles in ITN is being applied exclusively in this case. We post worse on ITN -- and I don't see a problem with that. At best, I just see a couple people here bitter that their opinions about the article were in the minority. --  tariq abjotu  07:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, just sad that appalling logic, ignorance and bullying have so much impact on content in Wikipedia. You just displayed such traits yourself in telling us that the majority rules here. It should never come ahead of quality. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, like I said, bitter. You have made it sound like you went to the ends of the Earth to fix quality issues with the article. This is not true. Your primary contribution to discussion at the article was expletive-laden comments about how the title needs to include both "shooting" and "death". You then proceeded to use your failure to get other people to agree as a reason why this shouldn't be on ITN. I can easily see why you think both words should be in the title, but the majority did not agree, and there was no consensus for a different name. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles. That's the way things work. Try again in a couple of weeks, but don't bring your vendetta here. --  tariq abjotu  08:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very simplistic and completely wrong response, Oh, and please point us to the Wikipedia policy that says majority rules. Since you agree that's the basis for content in that article, you will agree that it's rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How was that wrong? Anyone can look over your comments there, which aren't difficult to find (especially the one that says "THIS IS NOT A FUCKING VOTE!!!!!" in bold and all-caps). Your comments are textbook examples of how not to participate in discussions on Wikipedia, and the outcome was appropriate given what transpired -- no many how many exclamation points you use. Further, given your remarks there, and your past history on ITN/C, I don't really give a damn what you think about the article. I would have probably just ignored you, but for the fact that other people, without making an independent judgement of the article, are coming to the same conclusion. --  tariq abjotu  09:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant support. It may not be big international news (nothing over here in India for instance), but this looks like big news in the US; I also see a front pager on BBC's UK website as well on UK's The Independent. I don't know a lot about the subject itself, so I'm a bit reluctant in judging.  Lynch 7  07:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose; relatively localised story (even in the US it is secondary news and abroad it has zero exposure) - we have one of these blow up every few months ("biggest and most controversial cases in recent memory"). Storm in a teacup, as usual. --Errant (chat!) 09:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sources you look at, but, twelve hours later, it's still the top story on every American news source I've seen. This is not "secondary news". And, as said elsewhere, this has garnered international media interest, far from "zero exposure". Try again. --  tariq abjotu  09:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Tariq you are snapping and being unreasonable. "Try again" comes across as deeply uncivil. I have serious doubts about this story aligned with the other oppose votes in this nomination. It simply is not making the significant impact beyond the US which we would accept normally for a crime story of its kind. I know it might be ringing loudly in your ears, but across the world the sound is muffled and indistinct. There is a danger that you're bringing out the soapbox for this nomination, and that'll only make my Oppose vote more strong. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm sorry. So it's not okay for me to respond to ErrantX, but it's okay for you to respond to me? You already stated your position; I read it, I did not misunderstand it, and I did not respond to it. I don't particularly care for hearing it again. I responded to the oppose votes earlier because none of them provided a reason, and when they did, I thanked them for them and did not respond further. Those are matters of opinion, and perfectly reasonable stances. But ErrantX's makes a statement that is objectively false. He stated, for one, that this story has "zero exposure" outside the U.S. directly below a comment from someone who said it's a front pager on the BBC and The Independent. I'm sorry, but it's difficult to tow the not-a-vote line, when it's considered improper to respond to such obviously incorrect statements.
 * And, what soapbox are you talking about? If you think I'm soapboxing, I'm dying to hear what position I'm shouting from atop my soapbox. I have not expressed any opinion about the case itself. But, if you think you've got me figured out, c'mon, I want to hear it. All I have discussed is the story's newsworthiness, which, believe it or not, is a huge part of what happens here at ITN/C. I had no expectation that you would change your position, and I have no desire for you to, so your threat of doing so has no effect on me. I am within my bounds to provide my own position, to respond when asked questions, and to denounce factually incorrect points. Please stay out of this if you have a problem with that. --  tariq abjotu  10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just say "no consensus", eh? We'll all go back to our drinks and the pianist can strike up again from where he left off. Formerip (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rarely are discussions "closed" here. And, dude, it's only been twelve hours. Let it play out. --  tariq abjotu  10:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well; it hasn't been front page news on the BBC website, so no idea where that came from. The Independant are carrying it on their site only, under world news. This has had minimal mainstream coverage in the UK, France, Italy etc. mostly under the world news sections. According to a close friend in the US this isn't headline news in her state. So that is what I am basing my view on. My "finger in the air" judgement on these things would be "If I ask a random person on the street what is the likelihood they've heard of this". If I think that will be around 20-30% then I'd support. This simply does not have the exposure. --Errant (chat!) 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Headlines on the BBC website (and I imagine a lot of news websites) are different based on where you're located. For example, where I am, and presumably in most of the U.S., this arrest is (still) the top story on the BBC. Presumably, where Mike Lynch is -- in India -- it's the same. I assumed if it was the top story on the BBC site in India that it would also be the case in the UK, since neither of those locations is actually associated with this story (and India is certainly much farther away). But, presumably there is a supposedly more pressing story related to the UK that the BBC wanted to highlight there. --  tariq abjotu  11:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As of right not, 1300 ish UK time, here are screengrabs of the BBC News homepages.   . Not the lead for World, tucked away at the (UK facing) home page, and the lead in World>USandCanada. One out of three is a hit, I grant, but for the sake of this nomination, it's marginal. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the BBC modifying their content - but the person clearly said BBC UK, which I was pointing out is not the case. Just routine news here in the UK at the moment. --Errant (chat!) 11:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Woah! looks like everybody's on at least seven cans of red bull. Here's my elaboration on why I opposed it. (1) Local Crime: I would think the crime itself is not ITN worthy as it is a local crime by which I meant that the direct victims are limited number of local citizens (eg: homicide, burglary, arson) as opposed to a national crime where the crime is against the state itself (eg: terrorism, treason) or against large sections of people across the state (eg: large scale financial crimes, crimes against entire communities, etc). I am sure the above are not recognized definitions of local crimes and national crimes, but the point I was trying to make was that the crime in itself does not have a large impact. (2) No Major Consequences: So then, has the crime triggered any event worthy of ITN notability ? The important consequencecs I have been able to identify (from article and comments posted above) are (2a) Allegations of Racism and Police Misconduct: Both are yet to been established in a court of law (my understanding of US law indicates that US follows the "innocent until proven guilty" policy) and even if established, these will not be too out of the ordinary in contemporary society, (2b) Debate regarding Florida's stand-your-ground law: Legal positions in most developed and developing countries are in a constant state of evolution and flux. The legal concept in question is merely one of the factors in determining whether the defence of personal self defence is available in a homicide or assault case. There is no change in any key legal principle of US law like a change in constitutional framework, abolition of death penalty, introduction of a new legislation or legalization of a previously prohibhited major activity. Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that this is one of the key legal principles of US law, what has happened so far is merely a debate - this legal provision is yet to be set aside or changed either by the legislature through a statutory amendment or by the judiciary through any judicial pronouncement. (3) Media Attention: I'll admit that this has garnered significant media attention, but while it can be a contributory factor in determining notability, it cannot be the only criterion (for example, that Japanese fishing boat lost in the Tsunami being found near the North American coast was reported pretty much everywhere). I think its been sufficiently debated and laid to rest in this forum that media attention alone cannot determine notability. As of now, I am yet to be convinced of any other factor indicating notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- I would like to remind everyone of WP:PA, as this discussion is getting even worse than the sports ones. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Raw speculation is not news. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Chocolate Horlicks, mostly. Regional significance (NOT interest) - race related murders happen all over the world just as unjust as this. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't report on stories because they're "populist" or receive lots of outside media attention. And people need to stop getting so angry about this, ITN is joke right now what with the NCAA and boat race fiasco. AGF still applies here you know! --Τασουλα (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahmed Ben Bella dies

 * Support once updated. Seems to be Ben with a big "b" in the sources used in the article. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * support we posted Lithuania's (whatshisface)Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose To be honest this is more a complete lack of enthusiasm than a vehement oppose. He's a former president of a country we have to regard as comparatively low-profile on the world stage. We have to face the facts that all countries are not equal of notability and that similarly not all former heads of state are notable. ITN is ultimately a service to our readers so they can easily find coverage of widely supported stories. Just how many of our users are going to be actively hunting down this? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose As historically important as he might once have been, his place in history now (from which we must take some kind of judgement/stance) is such that I don't believe we would be satisfying our own criteria by putting him on the front page. He is a significant person to a degree. Not, to my measure, a wide enough degree.doktorb wordsdeeds 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * umm...we posted the Lithuanian whathisface with neven as much global worth (both first leaders of the nelwly independent state)Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Oppose - "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." (WP:ITN/DC)  per RJFF. This death does not fit WP:ITN/DC <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 21:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read this criterion as "was in a high-ranking office of power" at the time of his/her death. Otherwise we would have to post the death of every ex-president, ex-PM, ex-minister and ex-governor and ITN would completely transform into an obituary. --RJFF (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ITN is not an obituary. Mr. Ben Bella died unsurprisingly of old age (93) and was long out of office (he was president from 1963-65). The death is neither unexpected or premature, nor was he still in power when he died. --RJFF (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pile on oppose. Sad as it is, its a person who wasn't in office. Int'l media coverage about this isn't a lot either.  Lynch 7  07:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake
A massive earthquake in Indonesia. Too early to say anything but we should keep an eye on this one. --Tone 09:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the mere magnitude of the earthquake makes it notable enough to post. 8.6s are fairly rare. Support either way (waiting for damage/tsunami reports or posting immediately). With aftershocks as strong as 8.3, I'd say the earthquake alone is notable. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable earthquake. I myself live in India and actually felt the tremors (in Chennai). Plus, tsunami possibilities and what not, this one most certainly needs to be on the Main Page. And soon. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment second 8.6 magnitude quake just reported in the same spot. EdwardLane (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By whom? Not the US Geological Survey, probably the most reliable source for this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * USGS isn't the only warning agency, you know. 8.6 reported by the Hong Kong Observatory; the Japan Meteorological Agency appear to have the aftershock at 8.7 8.2. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it's nice that we have sources now. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Notable earthquake. I live in Kolkata and while editing Wikipedia from my home, I felt the quake sitting in my chair. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  11:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Felt it in Bangalore too, had to evacuate office building temporarily. India has issued a tsunami warning for A/N Islands, Andhra and Tamil Nadu. Low lying areas on the East Coast are being evacuated. Its a strong quake no doubt, but may be we can wait a couple of hours to evaluate the damages/consequences to assess notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Its pretty notable already; 8.5 to 8.9 on the Richter scale (multiple sources show different things) definitely means heavy damage. Tsunami alerts compound that. Damage for such earthquakes is not so short-term; especially with a number of aftershocks, we won't know what will be the actual death/damage until at least a few days. I vote to put this on the Main Page now, and add any little updates later. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say ready to post now. At the moment, thee article consists of several sections with 1-2 sentences but this will surely improve. However, as I started the original article and nominated the item, I kindly ask another admin to post. --Tone 12:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is ready to go to main page -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  12:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Support pending repercussions - A massive earthquake indeed, some local authorities are being optimistic by saying that there is not a very high likelihood of a tsunami occurring and striking Indonesia. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As editors have said lets wait just a few more hours to see what is coming out of it. the article says there is no tsunami jsut warnings (whichis politicall the right thign to do so as to avoid blame). I moved from the lead to expand the article...some more work on organising 9with the rest continuing later) should make it ready. Mind you the article also has some OR and uncited stuff at the moment which needs to beb cleaned out. When on ITn there is sure to be vandalism, etc
 * Other such disasters are posted on casualties NOT if its a big bboeing vs. turboprop or hurricante 5 vs. tornado 1
 * comment no doubt there is support (and so far unanimous) were just pending a quality update through more source which will come. [please take this into account, posting adminLihaas (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment The name is wrong. It happened 500 km (over 300 miles) away from Aceh, and Indonesia. The relevant article is now called 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake. Let's call this "Massive earthquake in Indian Ocean". HiLo48 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Massive is pov. What did ywe use for Haiti>?Lihaas (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. How about simply "Indian Ocean Earthquake"? HiLo48 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "A magnitude 8.X earthquake strikes off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesiav"Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So, will this be posted? And Lihaas, I can't understand your statements sometimes. Please be clearer. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- I'm all for posting this now. The sooner the better. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 14:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Is an earthquake causing no damage really ITN worthy? Formerip (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Meh, many of us felt it, but that's not a reason for which this should be going up; I'd support this if we get to know of some casualties (if any) and the damage caused. We shouldn't be posting it just because it was an earthquake of 8 point whatever.  Lynch 7  16:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that an earthquake of such rare strength, regardless of damage or casualties, is inherently ITN worthy. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no seismologist, but one really shouldn't go by magnitude alone; the effect of earthquakes doesn't just depend on the magnitude, but also other factors like depth. I mean, if there's no damage/casualties and the quake is of another scientific significance (probably the highest ever measured or whatever), then there's probably some worth in posting it. But otherwise, I wouldn't be too sure of supporting this.  Lynch  7  16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the effect of earthquakes can depend on other things, like depth, but that doesn't factor in here. The real reason this didn't cause more damage is that it was so far from land and because it was a strike-slip fault (which generally doesn't generate tsunamis). The vast majority of casulaties and damage in both the 2004 Indian Ocean and 2011 Japan earthquake (both of whose epicenters were offshore) were from the tsunami rather than the actual shaking. So, this is definitely a strong earthquake, but it would really need to generate a tsunami to do real damage. Tsunamis tend to occur as a result of vertical displacement in the plates, which doesn't, by definition, occur along strike slip faults (look at Part A of this image); tsunamis, at the very least, must occur on a fault (normal or reverse) that has vertical movement or, better yet, on subduction zones, which result in massive vertical displacements of fluid. The 2004, 2011 (and most other tsunamis) were in subduction zones. Long story short: strong, and fairly uncommon earthquake, with fortunate location keeping this from being a disaster. --  tariq abjotu  17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was very explanatory :)  Lynch 7  17:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support an 8.6 quake is quite rare and certainly more notable than who wins various golf tournaments. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Im personally inclined to admit we should wait...looks like there will be stuff but we cant synthesise. At any rate, should the decision be made i think the page is coming along to a good level. (certainly better than the aircraft crashes we post.Lihaas (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for posting now. An 8.6 quake is a major event for the world, and the fact that the "main story" on this quake is currently the good news that it didn't kill a large number of people does not make it any less noteworthy. Also, the article is currently in reasonably good shape. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. According to Richter magnitude scale, an earthquake of that size is something we should expect to happen about once a year. Formerip (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record the Richter scale is widely considered deprecated in seismology circles (though I am not a seismologist); the Moment magnitude scale is more widely used nowadays and any blurb should make reference to Moment rather than Richter. But indeed, the BBC were saying earlier an earthquake above magnitude 8 happens only once or twice a year. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your use of the word "only", though. Formerip (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support this candidate if it's posted as a novelty item. When was the last time an earthquake of this magnitude caused no casualities and minimal damage. YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This should not be treated as a novelty item. A major earthquake is not a ha-ha joke. This event was treated very seriously by the disaster response personnel and people who evacuated buildings and coastal regions, fearing a much worse outcome. Furthermore, it is not all that unusual for large-magnitude earthquakes to occur in locations so remote that they have little consequence for human populations. This one, on the other hand, occurred in a highly populated region and -- deservedly -- has been a major news story worldwide. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Novelty as in unusual, uncommon, maybe even uncanny. Also given that, most if not all magnitude 8 and above earthquakes that occurred in the last 100 occurred on fault lines which numerous large population centers are located at, an earthquake that has caused effectively no damage is novel. YuMaNuMa Contrib 18:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not true. In 1952, 1957, 1963, and 1965, there were earthquakes greater than 8.5 that had no casualties since they occurred in remote locations. Of course, the world population has grown substantially, but the locations of those earthquakes is still considered rather remote. The frequency of this type of earthquake is difficult to gauge: this image shows that the last 8.5-magnitude earthquake (ignore the file name; it's referring to 8.5-magnitude quakes) prior to 2004 was nearly forty years earlier (the 1965 one), but since then, this makes the sixth. This is the highest magnitude earthquake in 47 years to cause no casualties, but this isn't a product of amazing engineering, just chance location. Today's quake, recall, was nearly 500 km from a somewhat populated location. Shaking felt on even the closest land was relatively minor. It's not uncanny; the zero-damage, zero-causality result is to be expected. That, of course, does not necessarily mean this isn't newsworthy though. --  tariq abjotu  18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 out of 4 stilled caused somewhat considerable damage despite no casualties, this earthquake caused, as I said before, effectively no damage which I find quite uncanny but of course those with a geological background will be able to produce a perfectly logical explanation for that. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that; its not just the magnitude, but the effects which are to be taken into consideration. As I've said above, if there's something scientifically significant about this (I don't mean a novelty item), then I'd support it. I don't see why we should post it when there is no great impact on life (sure, some regions were probably evacuated and all, but thankfully there was minimal damage).  Lynch 7  17:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support We have to be careful not to be disappointed because people haven't died. It is a very severe earthquake and a current, notable event leading many media sources' news agendas today doktorb wordsdeeds 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

... by Tariqabjotou, link to article added by myself. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted
 * Posted Yes, there appeared to be support and the article is well-updated. [Sorry this message took so long.] --  tariq abjotu  19:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Korean parliamentary election

 * Note: Relinked to 'South Korean legislative election, 2012. – H T  D  08:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment  I don't know about everyone else but personally I am tired of these pro-forma nominations of ITNR items before the update and in some cases before they have even happened.  The whole point of ITNR is that notability has already been established and there is only the update to consider, which by posting here you are implicitly saying has been done - otherwise it is nothing more than a waste of everyone's time.  If I look at the article now I find the update sadly lacking and it would be an oppose.
 * I can think of a few items where that needn't necessarily hold because there is a much wider article to consider and the update is a small element of that - space probes come to mind - but an article about an event can only be assessed once the event has taken place and the article reflects that. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated the blurb: Saenuri has won, and not only the plurality, but the absolute majority. The number of seats is already known, but the number of popular votes isn't yet, neither does the article reflect reactions on the result. --RJFF (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to be posted: Complete results are incorporated. Article is perfectly up to date.
 * Its NOT "perfectly ready" as it could use some more prose...but i added some stuff in prose.Lihaas (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I said it was "perfectly up to date". It doesn't have to be perfect to get posted. The article doesn't get page-protected once it is posted. You can continue adding more information after it's posted. Now, the article includes all the results, and Lihaas has added some prose today. I'm not rushing, but let's post it, before the news becomes stale. --RJFF (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with RJFF and believe it should be posted as soon as possible before it gets old. There really is no need to wait. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 15:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing the blurb from 'defends' to 'retains' as the former may be taken to mean that the election is ongoing. wctaiwan (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --  tariq abjotu  05:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Xilai

 * Support: For what it's worth, this is still being discussed on BBC news programming. Also please tell me the section header is the joke I want it to be. GRAPPLE   X  03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a wikilink. If that's a different joke to the one you wanted it to be, my apologies. Formerip (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Have literally just rewatched series two about an hour ago. Made my night. GRAPPLE   X  03:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support:Was a high ranker within the party that rules the country. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 05:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose we just posted a similar issue less than a month ago...dont need the chronology of his show trialLihaas (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- Obvious major global interest with significant coverage worldwide. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted his dismissal. This is just an update to that story. --hydrox (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is a significant update. It is not just a predictable sequential event. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We didn't previously report his dismissal from the Politburo, which has only just happened. We reported on him losing his position as the provincial secretary for Chongqing. Formerip (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So the career of a mostly domestically noteworthy politician is in decline? Whoa, we'd have a ton of these .. I supported posting the original story, but I don't think it's worthwhile posting an update due to rather low (<-prove me wrong?) significance in the Anglosphere. --hydrox (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the murder aspect is new and it throws a new light on the whole thing in terms of how (according to observers) the Chinese system can facilitate serious corruption. Because Bo is not being fully supported or protected by the party and because the scandal is what everyone is talking about in China, this creates an atmosphere which may lead to political reforms, which is significant for everyone. Plus, in terms of the Anglosphere, the murder victim was Angloshperian. How this is now handled has relevance to China/UK relations . Formerip (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. While I have sympathy with the view that we didn't need to post his downfall twice, this is unquestionably of more international interest than the previous one. —WFC— 21:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Humungous news as one of the most meteoric downfalls in modern Chinese political history. But pray, what does Bo' Selecta! have anything to do with this? Shome Mishtake Shurely... -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's how it's done in wikilinks. One of Neil Heywood's business clients was Rolls-Royce plc founded by Charles Rolls, who was born and died in Dorset, where Craig David was later born. It was he who gave the world the special phrase Bo Selecta.
 * I bet it takes the Chinese cops twice as long to work that out. Formerip (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OIC, so you're playing 'six degrees of separation'. No, the Chinese cops will never work that out. But apparently, Heywood may have had close ties with MI6. The truth will out. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Significant update. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Loop Mobile

 * Oppose - A relatively small company with only 3 million subscribers in India becomes the third company to shut down after a scandal. I don't even think this will even make the news section in India's local paper, perhaps the technology section would suit it. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but three million people losing their cellular service provider is not small. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the west maybe, but it's certainly not notable when you have two other companies with 16 million and 35 million subscribers shut down which none of which were even nominated for candidacy on ITN. If that company was to operate in Australia, it would be ranked 4 in terms of the number of subscribers, not sure where it would rank in a country 60 times more populous than Australia. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agree, its not that notable. Even in the Indian telecom sector alone, there is bigger news with Airtel launching 4G. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose- A small company that is third to shut down. No way this is going on front page. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose–Check again. The company is shutting operations in circles other than Mumbai. It means, the move is expected to impact 6,100 customers Only!!! -- GP Pande  14:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

South Ossetia Election

 * Dammit, beat me to it, but Malawians have their own elections ;)
 * Its not ITNR but its the first election after the 2008 war and SO's intl recognition...its also a RE-run of an election that was canceled through high drama and controversy making it more pertinent.
 * Incidentally, supportLihaas (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose only recognized by five UN member states, one less than the previously rejected Abkhazia. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  11:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if and when adequatly updated. We are neither the UN nor the ICJ. We don't apply international law, we inform from a neutral POV. Soth Ossetia exists de facto, whether other countries like it or not. The election has taken place, whether other countries consider it legitimate or not. There is a new head of state, whether other countries may acknowledge it or not. And if you start citing precedents: of course we have included the presidential election in Taiwan, even though it is not officially recognized by most UN member states. --RJFF (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if it were a UN member it would still be a very tiny country. Nergaal (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * okey, this is the same logic rubbished on ITNR. kosovo is a small state, as is Uruguay, Zimbabwe, Mali, the 2 claimants to jerusalem, lanka, singapore, etc.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- At a point it becomes too much when we try to post every head of state election for every self-declared independent country. Not every election is notable, and this one is for a country that is insignificant in size and population and doesn't have much statehood recognition outside of itself. I don't think it's just the small size, as Lihaas has shown that to be irrelevant, but an election that bears little significance to the rest of the world in an insignificant, not just small, "nation." <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For many of the reasons given above. This is not a country recognised by many other countries. Indeed, my Chrome spell-checker is having trouble with it too ("Ossetia" is red-lined, "Kosovo" is not, curiously). I respect democratic elections and have stated elsewhere that Wikipedia should be a window into the democratic world. I cannot deny this country's existence or the fact the election has been run. I can deny its place as front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Microsoft Word spellchecker recognizes Ossetia, but the spellcheckers on my Blackberry and this Wikipedia edit page underline Ossetia while Kosovo is not underlined. Its time to face the cold hard statistics: Kosovo is 300% more widely recognized than Ossetia (North, South and all resident Ossetians included) by software applications made in North America. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose another one of the puppet states of Russia, set up to intimidate Georgia and the West. I fail to recognize the ITN-worthiness of it all. Crnorizec (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support We are not here to assess the legitimacy or otherwise of the state: that is intrinsically POV. This is not a "puppet state of Russia" and to portray it as such is a gross misrepresentation.  Western media coverage has been highly selective and biased in this area: it was widely reported when the Russians went in as if it was some unprovoked act of naked aggression.  The trigger for that - Kiev sending in troops against its own people who had the audacity to demand autonomy - was conveniently ignored.  Like it or not South Ossetia is a de facto independent realm and these are the first elections of that realm. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
 * We're not the ones who've chosen not to recognize the country. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  00:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * North American spellcheckers decide whats ITN-worthy? thats a first. This is more notable with the rare case of a RE-run election that was still democratic by all standards.
 * Incidentally, kosovo is a "western puppet state" just the same that we posted (more than once).Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: By no means is S.O. an "independent" state, on the contrary, it is heavily dependent of- and reliant on Russia. That's why it is not widely recognized. I would urge people who profess democracy here to look at the map of Georgia, and to recognize that it is one of the few strongly pro-Western states in the sensitive Black Sea and Caspian basins. It is therefore repeatedly undermined by Russia with artificial political events such as "independent" Abkhazias and South Ossetias, frequent armed conflicts, economic blockades, and other means of special warfare. Crnorizec (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to get the facts right and not assert pov as fact. 1. pro-western doesnt mean independent and democratic, 2. kosovo is far from independent (Seen its constitution that explciitly calls/justifies a foreign presence?), 3. "undermined...artificial" how is that then? because you dont like it? Keep forum postings off deceiving ITNLihaas (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is the subject here Kosovo, or is it your obsession??? Crnorizec (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of countries have aid of various forms, this position simply doesn't hold any water. Is Isreal not an independent country?  Egypt?  India?  Countless developing countries?  The political views of a country are an irrelevance and far from being undemocratic simply because they have adopted an anti-western position, it is this attitude of "You can have whatever views you want, provided you agree with us" that is the very antithesis of democracy.  It is that very systematic bias I alluded to in my first post: people have been programed to a particular belief while being completely ignorant of the underlying situation. Pro-western does not equate to democratic, and the West does not have a monopoly on human rights and democracy. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point for ITN here is not whether S.O. is pro-western or not, it is that it is widely unrecognized. And it's not because it is a puppet state. Crnorizec (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If their views are an irrelevance why are the more pro-western views of Ukraine so relevant to your previous analysis? It is logically inconsistent to assert they are relevant in one case and not another. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Barking up the wrong tree: There is no requirement to debate the international recognition of South Ossetia. I had mentioned this in the Abkhazia nomination as well, but I'm quoting the criteria for posting elections from the ITN/R page again: "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits". So the fact that South Ossetia is disputed or dependent does not disqualify it. Even if we were to concede (for argument sake) that the primary argument of most of the opposers that it is not a "recognized state" or that it is a "puppet state" were true, that still does not disqualify this ITN nomination. Its extreme POV and systemic bias if you start disqualifying de-facto independent territories just because they are not recognized by the West or just because another nation exerts more influence on them than the Western countries. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that elections in disputed states should not be disqualified (it's policy), but I think the point is that South Ossetia is barely recognized by anyone and its election is insignificant to the world by virtue of that fact, so judging it on its merits alone I would say that it is far less important than an election in another disputed state with more influence and recognition, such as Taiwan. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A democratic rereun of an entire election? that adds somethingLihaas (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This was a controversial election, even without the whole unrecognised thing. The elections will go a long way to deciding the future path with regards to Russia (Interesting article with regards to that here). CMD (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Masters

 * Support It's the Masters, that should be enough reason to post it (Once the article is ready) - Anc516 (talk • cont) 00:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's all updated now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotHat (talk • contribs)
 * It still lacks a prose update <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated both articles. If this isn't good enough, let me know. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 01:38, April 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Prose sections of the tournament article need a good copyedit - right now they read like a hundred piecemeal edits and wedged-in facts as opposed to a coherent whole.  Do the first two sentences need to tell us three times that the tournament occurred in 2012, for example?  Is "one of, and the first, of golf's four major championships" not redundant in a cringe-inducing way?  Why does coverage jump around chronologically in a seemingly random way?  I don't think too much work is needed - perhaps ten or fifteen minutes comprehensive redrafting by someone who knows and cares about the subject as opposed to further piecemeal editing.  I'll be happy to strike my oppose once that is done. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the criticism of my edits; I'll keep working on it, but I don't appreciate being called someone who doesn't "know and care about the subject". If you truly cared, why didn't you invest the ten or fifteen minutes into improving the article, compared to the hour or so that I put into it? - Anc516 (talk • cont) 02:10, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me: not knowing or caring about the article is my reason for not doing it myself, it is not intended as a slight of your work. If you look at the edit history you will see that I did make a few minor technical fixes. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Sorry, it just sounded at first like you were trying to go after me. I reworded the first sentence based on your criticism. If you or anyone else has any other feedback for me, let me know. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine now, posting. --Tone 13:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Malawi (NOT Mali) update/new prez

 * Support: new president, who is both head of state and of government. Already updated, too. But why not link Malawi? --RJFF (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- reasonable update. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to be posted before it becomes stale. --RJFF (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And happened after the avalanche so can move one upLihaas (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Boat Race

 * Comment. I'm not sure there's an article to update, is there? There's no specific article for this year's event, and it seems a bit of a trivial event to include in The Boat Race. FormerIP (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, with the stoppage and the broken oar for Oxford, it's entirely possible that the 2012 Boat Race article could be sustainable! Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support  As a non-Brit, I actually hear of the existence of such race for the first time. I found it fascinating that the race has been held since 1856. The article is in great shape. It is just the kind of material for the front page. There's a sufficient update under #Notable races in recent years. --hydrox (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my vote. Turns out the event was disrupted by someone to draw public attention to a personal agenda. Per Crispmuncher reasoning far below, it's best not to give any more publicity than he has already received. --hydrox (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and agree that a spin-off article could be sustained, it's been as notable today as most FA Cup finals. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as college basketball was opposed, as being far from the top level of the sport, even if it does receive publicity disproportionate to its sporting importance. Unusual events in a mid-level sporting event happen every weekend, because there are so many unimportant mid-level sporting events every week. Kevin McE (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is University level, not college level. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify the difference? Most of the institutions that participated in the NCAA tournament were Universities, or is the meaning in British English different from that in American English? --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah. Maybe that's the reason our British friends adamantly opposed college basketball. When they think of "college" they think of something (I'm guessing here) less than a "university". Lost in translation? – H T  D  17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in British English, "college" tends to refer to a level of education equivalent to the latter years of high school and/or freshman year of university in the U.S. But, I really can't believe most British readers (Mjroots, obviously not included) would not have either (a) known that in the U.S., "college" refers to university-level education or at least (b) known that that nomination was about university-level sports. From my understanding, the notion that "college" means something else over there [i.e. in the U.S.] is not an uncommon piece of knowledge in the UK. --  tariq abjotu  22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, difference between "US college basketball" and "The Boat Race" is that the Boat Race has a global audience in the 100s of millions. Apparently up to 400 million in 180 countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that university rowing is inherently insignificant like college basketball. But given the long history of this particular event, the good shape of the article and the fact that (to my knowledge) it has never been featured in ITN, I would give it a go if easter time proves a slow news period. --hydrox (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Without any comment on the merits of the nomination itself, this seems like an utter slap in the face to those who supported the failed NCAA basketball nom earlier in the week.--WaltCip (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See above, relevant to a global audience of hundreds of millions in nearly 200 countries. Unlike college basketball. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For a supposed global audience, this is not trending in Twitter worldwide; the upcoming iCarly episode with British boyband One Direction is the one trending in the UK and worldwide. In fact, the race per se (keywords such as "Cambridge," "Oxford," and "boat race") isn't even trending locally in the UK. The swimming troll is trending, though. Would support if the blurb focused on him. – H  T  D  16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware of demographics Howard. Those who tweet would be more One Direction oriented, those who read encyclopaedias would be more Oxbridge oriented.  Historic race today with the swimming moron.  I would support either main article or, better still, a 2012 boat race article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you implying that Wikipedia, in spite of being an Internet medium, is intended only to cater to those who would read paper encyclopedias?--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, but I do realize the UK has to be one of the most wired places on Earth, so those who care about this race should also tweet about this. Or is this more about Oxbridge thing than it being an athletic competition? If it is then that truly is a very limited scope; if it is not, then we'd have to judge this as an athletic competition with all of the "mid-level sporting event" argument Kevin told us. If we're going into longevity, college basketball is almost as old as basketball per se. If we're going to global audience, that smells like the NFL saying that the Super Bowl had a global audience of one billion. I don't think this was even televised live in Japan (tried looking for TV listings there). – H T  D  16:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably wasn't, but probably was televised in most of the former Empire which accounts for 1/3 of the globe. But anyway, I think we'll have this NCAA (who?) vs "Boat Race" (what?) argument to eternity. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly believe some bloke in Hyderabad (either of them) or Penang knew the boat race existed? Chances are slim. – H T  D  16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop mentioning about the Basketball tournament being opposed judge each nomination on its own merits and not about getting hung-up on something else. This is absolutely ridiculous and getting way out of hand now, sometimes I just wish sports nominations were banned because they cause so much trouble and tit-for-tat arguments... --Τασουλα (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (Note: This was a reply to Τασουλα's original post which was revised by him: NCAA audience in the Commonwealth (the British one) wasn't argued upon in the NCAA nomination. What was argued upon there was "global audience" which was never in the ITN criteria, so was invalid from the get-go. We're talking about here is the Boat Race's audience within the Commonwealth. Also, I thought you were talking about the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Hah.)
 * (Note: Now, this is a reply on Τασουλα's subsequently-amended post.) This is a similar event to the NCAA one hence you can't prevent people from comparing the two, unless you're into banning people. True story: Sometimes I join in these discussions just to see how "ridiculous" the arguments are. 180 countries watched the Boat Race? Who knew? Are the Home Nations one or 4 countries? – H T  D  17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Are the Home Nations one or 4 countries?" - Don't even go there!!!. Sorry, about what I said it was in reply to the original post and anyone so much as talking about it, there's just no need and it cloggs up the system. Also, please refrain from referring to me as "he" xD Also, I thought you would of been thinking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Swish! Τασουλα (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry for referring to you as a "he." Heee. – H T  D  17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well of course I have no idea if your "bloke in Hyderabad" knew about it but it's hard to deny this was a global (that means outside America) event. Last year's was broadcast in over 200 countries.  It's significant on a global scale.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no claim in that article that it was broadcast, in the normal sense of the word, in more than 200 countries. Essentially, it says that the internet relay was not geographically restricted.  Which is pretty much tantamount to saying that it was of no economic value outside the UK.  Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If this "significant on a global scale", why is this not on Google News Canada homepage? In its sports section are reports on hockey, curling, baseball and... (gasp!) basketball!(!!!) – H T  D  17:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course you'll find plenty of pages that don't feature it, but the point remains, an event broadcast in over 200 countries is notable and globally significant. How many countries does NCAA get broadcast in?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The NCAA tournament is broadcast in Canada, Australia, Brazil and Europe (individual countries not listed) according to its wiki page. --Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has argued that NCAA basketball is "significant on a global scale" (Wait, I think somebody did!), but I just find it cringe worthy that a significant event (not just sports event) on a global scale doesn't show up in the sports section of Google News Canada, heck even Google News Australia. That's like the 2 largest Commonwealth countries that should care about this. – H T  D  17:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * >_< Maybe they don't have the story up yet? Omg wait. There's a conspiracy going on here, the former Empire is rebelling! Which is funny. Wait, wasn't the original nomination based on the Aforementioned troll interrupting it? Was he really a troll? And I dare anyone to oppose the Olympic nomination, when it comes, based on the NCAA basketball being opposed. As a joke of course... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, I saw this on the French Google News (I can't read French that well, but I'd presume the story focuses on the swimming troll), so, as what I've said earlier, I'd gladly support this if the blurb focuses on the swimming troll and not much else. Not because it's a boat race between Oxford and Cambridge that's been held for a long time. – H T  D  17:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posh toff twats having their afternoon jolly-up interupted isn't worthy of the front-page.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hang on, a lot of people go to those universities who aren't "posh toff twats" actually. If you have issues with such educational establishments, that's fine, but labelling a whole bunch of people you know nothing about as "posh toff twats" is entirely uncalled for. A British television audience of 6 million, are they all "posh toff twats"?  Sounds like you have a chip me old mucker.  Shoulderwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You introduced a source to this thread that describes the event as "an unavoidably class-bound two-horse race" Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. If anything, these are the "Jocks" competing in the boat race and most people who watch it here do so for the rivalry thing. Maybe if this was ascot or another butchery-sport event I would agree... --Τασουλα (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well only 7 of the 18 crew members were British. It hasn't really been that elite for 30 years. Leaky  Caldron  17:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this year in isolation due to the exceptional circumstances of the race. As an annual event I'd say it's borderline (impressive viewing figures notwithstanding), but this year definitely tips the scales in favour of posting. I would however suggest getting rid of the second sentence of the blurb. —WFC— 16:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support probably the most notable boat race in the world, I agree with WFC get rid of the second sentence as that reads like a sports headline from a newspaper. Secret account 16:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The blurb is open to amendment by the posting admin should this get posted. There'll be no complaints from me if an amended blurb is posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support only iff the blurb mentions the race restart, and does not focus on the clash of oars (or any other insignificant race incident — we don't post touchdowns for the Super Bowl or goals for the World Cup Final, for example). Suggest blurb: <tt>The 2012 Boat Race, suspended and restarted due to an intruder in the River Thames, is won by Cambridge University.</tt> —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kevin McE. Additionally, the section in the article needs more references before this can be posted.  Spencer T♦ C 17:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Amateur sporting competition. No significant international impact. --Allen3 talk 17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Canadian, U.S., Australian, N.Z., Dutch and German crew members. This isn't just a bunch of British upper class amateurs. Leaky  Caldron  17:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not seeing the significance beyond the British isles/Australia. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it have any significance in Australia? I'm pretty sure that if I started talking about the "Boat Race" to my mates they wouldn't have a clue what I was on about (though the same could be said about US college basketball). Jenks24 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot see how significant is this to be on ITN in comparison to other (and more professional) sporting events out there such as those mentioned in this discussion, plus is not likely to benefit to anything else other than those involved within the two universities. Donnie Park (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It just wouldn't be Wikipedia without thinly veiled UK-US tribalism going on, accompanied by a smattering of pointscoring in revenge for past failures. I say this independently of my support rationale: there is some of this going on from both sides, and such rationales should be discounted. Discussion should be focussing on the merits (or lack thereof) of this event, not of another event or of the relative importance of one or more countries. —WFC— 18:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even most Brits find this event an embarrassing anachronism, of almost no interest. The interruption makes it marginally less trivial than usual, but still not ITN-worthy.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ^^I'd hardly call this a British Event, maybe English, but most certainly it's An Oxford-Cambridge thing. Most people are just interested in the competitiveness...not really the sport itself or the history/tradition/those involved. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this year only, due to the exceptional circumstances. I do not believe this should be posted each year, but it's pretty clear this year's race was out of the ordinary. Generally, I see this as on par with March Madness, which I would probably lean against posting unless something exceptionally noteworthy happens. Jenks24 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Unlike college basketball, which is watched by a minor audience in one country, the Boat Race has a worldwide audience and is part of the very fabric of British life. There can be very little details "not notable" about a 100+ year sporting event between the two oldest, most established, most respected Universities in Europe, if not the world. Unlike basketball, this is an event with wide appeal. Unlike "the first 1080 in skateboarding" or whatever it was, this is a credible sport and not just a hobby. Ultimately the event falls on the right side of "important". Our Colonial Cousins in the States might not like it, but when it comes to actual world important sporting events, we have far more right to far more events with that title. This is one of them.  doktorb wordsdeeds 19:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose In ordinary circumstances I'd have no problems with posting. Comparisons to random American college sporting events are at best misguided: there is a difference between asserting that a union of two or more factors lends notability to a broad class of possible nominations (i.e. "This is a popular sport, college sport is popular, ergo this is notable") and putting forward a single nomination as a stand-out event.  No one here is suggesting we start posting British university or college football or boxing or whatever, the assertion is that this one event is notable.
 * On the other hand I am actually opposing this, and that is due to the swimmer incident. This is one man with an axe to grind to has already received far more publicity than he actually deserves because of the childish and disruptive manner he went about making his point.  The coverage we give of his "argument" (which appears so far to be poorly developed and lacking any intrinsic substance) should be based on its intrinsic notability.  IMHO fair coverage here amounts to zip, and since we can't cover the substantive story without including the protest we don't cover it at all to avoid undue prominence. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Regional interest. I am specifically skeptical of the claims that it is viewed in 180 countries; on a very technical level, that's probably true, but that's also true of countless other even less significant sporting events.  Referencing The Boat Race's homepage, it would appear that most countries received the broadcast via BBC, which is certainly a major news outlet, but is also very specifically a British news source.  The claim that it's viewed in 180 countries would suggest that it receives major coverage by all those countries, on the scale of something like the World Cup (Association Football), which it does not. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose not that important in the grand scheme of things. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Far less significant that the basketball nomination which was not posted.  That the use of the phrase 'global interest' in this thread is a classic example of how that factor is misused at ITN.  'Global interest' (if indeed that's the case here) doesn't' mean 'global significance'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It is significant due to the nature of the race, see High drama for historic Oxford-Cambridge boat race and for the "security questions ahead of the Olympics and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Those that are opposing it due to the link with basketball, shame on you, how is a basketball event which nothing unexpected happened relate to this, lets hope the reviewing admin discountes them, they have no place here.
 * It seems to me that the newsworthiness in this story is not the boat race itself, but the fact that there was someone in the water.--WaltCip (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont' see the interruption as significant on its own. One man stages a protest by stopping a sporting event.  It's no more significant than a streaker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a little like that other than it caused a thirty-minute delay to an globally observed annual event which has been hosted since 1829. The significance is really the whole package.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Globally observed sporting events happen every day. I just watched a league football match, which unlike boat race was available via streaming internet (legally) where I am, that had a controversial penalty that's being discussed the world over. Is that ITN worthy?  As has been pointed out above several times, the size of the 'global audience' for this is highly questionable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine, I accept the "questionability" of a global audience here, but your "league football match" is not a once-a-year event that has taken place since 1829 where the athletes train all year for one single 17-minute event, is it? In any case, we'll see this again next year, and we'll see the boring NCAA vs the-rest-of-the-world arguments forever, so perhaps we're all better off just moving on and doing something less boring instead.  I certainly am. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The stopping of the race was a trivial event. Also, I note that the NCAA Basketball Tournament, which engages nearly 70 U.S. universities, is of great interest to both news media and oddsmakers, and included a game attended by the U.S. president and the UK prime minister, was deemed to be too minor a sports event to warrant attention at ITN. If that's too minor a topic for ITN, then the Boat Race surely is too minor to qualify. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that NCAA March Madness isn't even the proper comparison to this event. In March Madness, more than 60 teams are selected from hundreds of teams around the U.S.; this one is between two schools. It's more akin to the American college football rivalry games, such as the The Game, or the most equivalent comparison should be the Harvard–Yale Regatta. – H T  D  16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Army-Navy Game might be a good analogue as well, though it lacks the prestige university setting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has nothing to do with college basketball. It's a trivial amateur event that only gains attention because of it's history and that it is held in London, where 300 thousand people out of a metro population of 14 million come to watch. Utterly and staggeringly insignificant. --PHof7 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is all hype. This news should be on the England Portal page, or better, on the Oxford - Cambridge rowing Portal page. __meco (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Those who have come here to oppose this out of spite because the NCAA game wasn't posted would be smarter if they supported this, and other specialised local events, otherwise no such event will ever be posted. Take the more mature position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * U.S events are always going to have a tougher road to the nomination, regardless of whether this gets through or not. Take for example the Rio de Janerio school shooting to the most recent H.S one in the U.S (or heck even the Christian university one in Oakland which wasn't even nominated), Gary Speed vs. Al Davis, or the clusterfreak over the Penn State sex abuse scandal and later JoePa's death. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Shooting incidents in the US are never going to surprise nor seem newsworthy to people from other places because of what they see as America's insane gun laws. Sex scandals happen all over the world, and are rarely posted here. And old football coaches die everywhere too. Heck, I couldn't get the ridiculously young death of one of the most amazing people to ever play Aussie Rules, Jim Stynes, posted here recently. I still think though that the NCAA thing could have been posted had it been promoted a little more objectively and wisely. (WTF does "filling a bracket" mean to a non-American? Anyone who used that as part of an argument was off their brain.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that ITN wasn't for specialized local events unless there was some extra circumstance making them especially newsworthy. In any case, sports are especially sticky since virtually all sports have regionalized interest (on top of already being of speciality interest, namely to sports fans) and hence a large (perhaps vast majority) of readers will not be even mildly interested.  Regardless of whether you view American laws as insane or not, a school shooting is almost indisputably of greater impact than a local sports contest.  But, most of those get passed over as well, and rightfully so. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Energy saving tip. There's no way this is going to get posted, is there? FormerIP (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Debating tip Rhetorical questions don't work very well on the global Internet. They tend to be too culturally inclined and not well understood by those from different cultures than the poster's. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, my apologies to anyone from a culture that doesn't understand rhetorical questions. Formerip (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mali update x2
Dioncounda Traoré is appointed the interim president via a deal brokered by ECOWASLihaas (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not a newsticker. We have to draw the line at constant updates, and this line has been duly drawn doktorb wordsdeeds 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats why its not a fresh nom to add, but an update to the current line.Lihaas (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He was appointed as interim head of state and elections are announced to be held within 40 days. Let's wait for the election result with an elected president with a (hopefully) full term. --RJFF (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Siachen
The Siachen article has been marginally updated with the news. __meco (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ...in principle, but the article needs an update describing the incident. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an exceptionally large avalanche disaster. __meco (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as big as it gets I guess... --Τασουλα (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There is no question that this is front page news. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There is also this stub about the actual avalanche.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when article is expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support what was a stub appears to have been expanded enough. EdwardLane (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This looks ready. Nice job. FormerIP (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready. Article is decent, up to date and adequately expanded. Broad community support to post this notable disaster. --RJFF (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Grumble, grumble. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the upside, you're welcome to walk away with a share of my above compliment. FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is a bad thing. On DYK, it would have stayed there for eight hours. On ITN, it'll stay there for eight days. --  tariq abjotu  23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I did the heavy lifting on the article itself up to this point and had no knowledge of this whole thing. Ah well, should have checked, I guess. Maybe I can get a GA out of it if I stay on top of things. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Malawi prez

 * Support, obvously --Reader1987 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but wait  this Guardian report suggests there is still some doubt over his death. Suggest wait until (official?) confirmation. EdwardLane (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reuters and Nyasa Times confirms, while Al Jazeera initiall said he was critical w(when i read and updated) but now says the hospital confirmed.Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, looks like all the papers are saying he is dead, but not officially announced while they try to sort out succession. EdwardLane (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the latest Al Jazeera news bulletin, his death is still unconfirmed but obvious support if his death is later confirmed by government officials. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- I think this is ready; I can't see anyone trying to oppose it so no need to wait. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 13:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Death of an incumbent head of state should be relevant enough. --RJFF (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a neutrality tag on the top of the article, since January. This needs to be addressed first. --Tone 14:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Death of a head of state clearly significant. Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made some improvements to the article and removed the tag. Something to watch out for might be editors wanting to add the information that Mutharika's death is the fulfilment of a prophecy made by a Nigerian televangelist. FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ready: article is updated and neutrality problem has been dealt with. --RJFF (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone add the photo, please. --Tone 16:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Project Glass
If we're hard up for stories, what about: "Google announces the testing of augmented reality glasses."

It's a short article, but a fascinating subject and a minority topic. (This is my first nom, apologies for any fmting errors) Khazar2 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry but this kind of item is not for ITN. please go through the criteria page to familiarize yourself with the kind of notability required for ITN. thanks -- Ashish-g55 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did read those criteria, so you're going to have to help me out. This is a significant new technology, getting thorough coverage from mainstream media around the world (4x the results of Viktor Bout, below, for example), and reported to be potentially on sale within the year. The criteria state that ITN is particularly looking for technology articles. Not enough to avoid automatic dismissal? Which criterion did I miss? Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Although this may be getting mainstream coverage, and it is a minority topic, it hasn't even been released yet nor do we know much about it. The only source that these glasses actually exist yet is a Google post on their own website and the public knows little about it thus far. Although it may be important, announcing testing of the technology does not seem like the right time to post it. Try again when these are actually released. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Google does this sort of thing all the time, they have a whole unit dedicated to inventing things. I doubt many of the latest burst of releases will ever make it through, and in any case, "Willy Wonka Announces Diet Variety of Snozberry Juice" is just a PR stunt; it's not news. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seriously? Nokia actually did this too, but over two years ago already, and it was no big news back then, and neither is this now. Just another corporate vision / promo film. --hydrox (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Aizhai Bridge
Aizhai Bridge, the longest tunnel to tunnel suspension bridge, opens in Hunan, China

article Symoblisee (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Longest tunnel-to-tunnel suspension bridge" seems to be a PR agency's way of saying "twelfth longest suspension bridge". FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- This is a nice minority topic which is only remotely notable but could potentially hold interest for readers. It's a tough call, but just because it's not a real milestone as FormerIP pointed out, it's still a major event for China I'm sure. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support-Per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral, lean towards support It's not the news you say it is, so a change in blurb and full(er) explanation in the article is needed. I can see the attraction doktorb wordsdeeds 04:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * support per precdence and red timer, pending update on the opening the details, etc.Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is a beautiful bridge, but there is nothing significant about it. There are four suspension bridges longer than this one in China alone. Its height is entirely irrelevant because, unlike with the Millau Viaduct, the piers do not reach the ground. The fact that it is bookended by tunnels has nothing to do with the bridge itself. In the 21st century, a bridge of this type is nothing significant. --  tariq abjotu  16:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose only the twelfth longest suspension bridge, the tunnel to tunnel part is irrelevant to me. Also, it opened last month, according to our article.  It's kind of stubby too, and there isn't much on the opening.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   17:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've deliberately given this one a few days to see if the article settles down in a better state. It hasn't.  It reads like someone simply reeling off a set of statistics about the bridge: concepts are not developed and built upon as they are in a good piece of writing.  On that basis alone I'd say it isn't worthy of highlighting as quality content on the main page. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC).

Viktor Bout
"*Russian businessman Viktor Bout is sentenced to 25 years in prison for smuggling weapons to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia." --BorgQueen (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a slow day and the timer has been red for some time now. May I suggest:


 * Weak support, needs a proper update. You're right. This may have to do. FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak Oppose- In addition to there being no reference and the article having a mere one sentence update, I can't see this passing any other time then our current long red situation. One of the purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news," and seeing as this hasn't received much major coverage as far as I have seen, as well as the fact that this is an arrest of someone who hasn't received an overt amount of attention in the past and likely bears significance to a small number of our English-speaking readers which seems contrary to the goal of "point[ing] readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them," this is really a stretch to post this. Now that we have Azawad posted with more likely on the way, I see no need for this. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just because we've not had food in a while doesn't mean we should make do with scraps. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * weak support we post notable sentencing (not sure if his arrest/extradition was posted) and red timer.Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red timer is irrelevant doktorb wordsdeeds 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To youre reasoning perhaps. Everyone has their own reasons, some include "per..."Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. With all the coverage this story got when he was extradited to the US, I find it appropriate that we follow up with the sentencing. __meco (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mali update


the MNLA call off their offensive after saying they have captured whar they sought (no word on AD though). Its worthy of an update to the blurb and the aticle is updated. One can add "After the capture of the frontier town of Douentza Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments How about: Mali's Azawad National Liberation Movement declares an end to military activities claiming that they have captured enough territory to form their own state. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- A supposed end to a conflict that we've covered previously and has been one of the leading news stories as of late seems notable enough to me. However, if the battling continues in the end, it wouldn't be very impressive that we posted this. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Even if it's not quite the end of the conflict (the rest of W Africa is doing serious saber-rattling about an invasion to counter the coup and rebels at once), it's a major milestone in it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And a comment- The announcement is now more formal. What about: "Mali's Tuareg rebellion ends its offensive and declares the independence of Azawad."? Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to post? Would like to see some more feedback. --Tone 06:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make sure the article does have the relevant info. I didn't look at it carefully. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The links should be per BQ above as AD havent indicated the same.
 * Also for the blurb to replace "claiming that they have captured enough territory to form their own state" with "and declaring their own state"
 * Btw- also working on Azawad Declaration of IndependenceLihaas (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support BorgQueen's blurb seems better per Lihaas' reasoning. Might be the end of the fighting for a while anyway.
 * Support, but name the state, and write it bold, like: Mali's Azawad National Liberation Movement declares an end to military activities, declaring the new state of Azawad. --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, btw. ALso if the blurb is too long cna just write MNLA with the link hidden.
 * Also IF the declaration of independence is not going up (for which it too could be bolded) then can i be informed so i can DRYK it.Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The new state has already been rejected by several countries, not sure if that is worth mentioning if this candidate was to be posted up. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's not often a new state is declared by a party that actually controls the area CMD (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: New de facto state is born, has triggered major international attention and reactions (albeit negative). Articles are up to date. Ready to be posted? --RJFF (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go with Bender's suggestion. Looks fine to me. Posting. --Tone 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support to add the flag as illustration. --RJFF (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support use of MNLA flag. Seems appropriate. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * MNLA's flag is NOT the flag of Azawad with questions already being asked abut who holds writ vis-avis Anasr Dine. Surprising RJFF would suggest this after calling the AD flag insertion synthesis. 9rightfully)Lihaas (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Resignation of Serbian prez

 * Comment Becomes effective tomorrow, let's wait until then. Also, the updates are required in several articles. Otherwise, support, a standard ITN material. --Tone 13:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * support - for a mention tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * support per above. Wow their all quitting. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't want to say that I oppose it, but I'm rather sceptical. He only resigns to have the election (that is due this year anyway) some months earlier, because he thinks his party's chances are better then. The election (and its result) will be the real news, not that the president resigns to influence the election date. --RJFF (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- as RJFF pointed out, this resignation is a mere political maneuver which will have no tangible effect on Serbia or the world until the election. This is not a resignation marking a change in power or controversy as the Hungarian one was. It would be silly to post this; just post the actual election. Although this is a surprising decision, I'm not sure if it's an important one. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not even surprising. Observers and analysts had long speculated if he would resign to have parliamentary and presidential election on one day. --RJFF (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article refers to it as a "surprise early resignation." Is this incorrect, and can you bring a source so it can be changed? <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 23:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, "surprise" was just unverified embellishment. I have removed it, as it was not supported by the source. --RJFF (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] new PM of Senegal

 * Comment: Note that Senegal is a semi-presidential republic with a strong president. The role of the PM is by far less important than in parliamentary monarchies Australia or UK. Agree that appointment of new PM and presidential election are directly linked (it was predictable that Macky Sall wouldn't work with his predecessor's PM) --RJFF (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I beleive we posted Perus PM too.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per RJFF. This is just a part of the previously reported change in power. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above. This is a procedural event rather than anything direct or significant. Not important enough a decision for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 06:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Texas Tornadoes

 * This is NOT a minority topic, and theres no chance in hell its going up fo just happening. Cyclones/hurricanes that cause more damage generally, dont even go up on their own. Further, the nom is bound to be futile without an article evenLihaas (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * , it's covered in Norway. So international coverage exists. Although it would need an article. Also it's definitly slow news time in Norway atm.  176.11.18.191 (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose No article, no nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 08:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if an article is created, amazing footage, but no reported fatalities--the US has seen much worse tornado strikes just in the past year. Khazar2 (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the coverage of this died out pretty quick. I have relations in Texas, too. Also no article .___. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an article (albeit in terrible shape), and I have updated the nom accordingly. Oppose, however, because of a lack of significant casualties. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lack of severe impact or significance (not largest/earliest/deadliest/costliest), so oppose. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure this doesn't make it on, I'll add my oppose. As mentioned, this doesn't even approach significance. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 22:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is sub standard, casualties are within usual range for an event like this. Not significant enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 06:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Penny

 * Oppose- What is significant about this? They didn't even change their currency, just stopped producing a coin. Is it notable if a country stops making a certain bill of theirs? What sets this apart? <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 00:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. If Canada is the first major county to do this, then count me as a support. Otherwise, count me as an oppose. FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Australia don't have coinage below 5c but they do price things in 1 cent increments, so I assume they've abolished the coins that did exist. Could be wrong though. GRAPPLE   X  00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, the Australian one and two cent coins were withdrawn from circulation. GRAPPLE   X  00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not the first country to do this - indeed, some members of the € have done similar. I don't want to start a fight amongst my Colonial Cousins, but there could be an argument for Canada being more significant than Australia in doing this. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine what that argument would be. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, regretfully (I love my coins), per Doktorb. Khazar2 (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I love coins also - but this is on the ragged edge of trivia considering the large number of nations which have eliminated denominations of coins. And certainly not earthshattering news.  Now if Canada demonetized a category of coins - that might be news, but that is not the case.  Collect (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament
Either Kentucky or Kansas basketball teams are older than Chelsea F.C., the inventor of basketball coached Kansas once upon a time, and the semifinals had more people watching in the venue than the 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup, 2011 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship and 2011 Euroleague Final combined. – H T  D  00:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A great big meh. No use opposing or supporting either way because this nomination is just doing to degenerate into petty arguing, as it always has. Worth noting it's not the top level of the sport though. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment OK, this is one of those classic times when something the USA does very differently from the rest of the world is being proposed. Amateur college sport in any other country would never be nominated. Always hard to make a fair judgement on the American stuff. In my case, comparisons with soccer, especially under-age soccer, don't help. (They look more like a pre-emptive strike against UK editors, and I'm Australian!) Is this ITN/R? If not, what makes this years event special? (By the way, I had to go through three article links to find out what NCAA is. An explanation up front may help your case.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not ITNR, and pretty much every year something makes these annual events (not just this one) special. – H T  D  01:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (P.S. I used underage soccer as that is the closest comparison I can think of elsewhere (actually, the nearest example is college basketball in the Philippines, it outsells professional basketball). Sorry to the Australians, Canadians, Koreans, and the rest of 190+ countries of the world if I can't think of examples for their countries.) – H T  D  01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure the fans see it that way, but to non-fans, what makes this years event special? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually for non-fans, you can argue that the media will come up a reason why this year is special, just like last year's was special, and the last year's AFL Grand Final, 2011 Japan Series, 2011's hurling championship, etc., were all special. In other words, it doesn't matter what makes it special this year, since they'd always think of something. – H T  D  01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I knew you would bring that up and I've been thinking all week about how I could explain to you using something comparable in Australia, but to be honest I can't think of anything equivalent either there or in the UK. In the United States for some reason NCAA Football and Basketball both are followed just as much as their respective professional leagues...I can't really explain why. Is there any way I could help try to explain to you? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The AFL Grand Final is ITNR. This isn't. A case has to be made here, now. That's how this page works. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a nomination for this year's final. This is not about putting it in the ITNR list. – H T  D  01:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to make that case could you please tell me how I can explain this to you that would actually make sense without you having the personal experience with this that we do in the US? Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope you've noticed that I haven't actually opposed the nomination. I've suggested explaining what NCAA is (colloquially, not just what it stands for), and telling us what's special about THIS year's event. (If that didn't matter, it would be ITNR.) Comparisons with other countries, crowds and all, probably don't help, because we all know that the USA has a huge population anyway. (If population size was all that mattered, everything here would be Chinese, Indian and American.) How it ranks as an event within America is relevant. Is it the top tournament outside NBL? (See, I DO know something about your country.) Hope this helps. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see if I can explain this. The NCAA is basically the national body that oversees all university athletics. For professional sports the various sports have their own organizations (NBA, NHL, MLB, PBA, whatever), whereas for university level it's the NCAA for all sports. Most people couldn't care less about college sports other than basketball or football. For football and basketball the NCAA level competition is just as significant as the professional organizations. It is also of importance because athletes in all of the major professional US sports have to play in the NCAA first whether or not they are good enough to play at the professional level (with the exception of baseball, where prospects can be drafted out of high school). This year's event, in all honesty, isn't any more significant than any other year's tournament to the average citizen, but those from the same state as the teams (like me from Kansas) and those who's alma mater is one of the teams it is arguably more significant (not to say it isn't significant to others, just that it may not be of more significance than any other year's). In America this tournament may actually be more significant than the NBA's playoffs even though the NBA is the professional level. If it says anything the entire tournament (all 65+ games) are broadcast live on national television. Not sure how much more I can explain it...sorry it's a somewhat rambling paragraph. Hope this helps, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Live attendance is not related to the size of a country's population, unless for really small island states. See List of sports attendance figures. – H T  D  02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * God forbid HiLo actually read an article. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * :-) I'm on holidays. Got time to learn more about your culture. Fascinating, but weird ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  03:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the heads of state of other countries make announcements about their picks in the amateur sporting events of those other countries? Do amateur sporting events in other countries cause massive losses of productivity at businesses nationwide? That is the impact of the NCAA tournament. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical questions are rarely an effective debating technique, especially on the web, and even more especially when you're trying to convince people from different cultures. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for those about to espouse the typical "who cares outside the US?" bullshit, the nominator is from a different continent entirely. That should help explain this is actually important. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is an amateur sporting event. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 03:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The NCAA Tournament is internationally broadcasted (not only on television, but streaming online worldwide), and it does have a following with basketball fans in other countries. Even those who don't watch sports end up filling out brackets. Last year's tournament had 20.1 million viewers in the US, more than the 17 million viewers that last years NBA Finals (an ITN/R event) averaged over 6 games (See 2011 NBA Finals, 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament). Basketball fans worldwide know about, and most likely watch or follow, two major events that are held every year, the NBA Finals, and the NCAA Tournament. The fact that it is collegiate athletics and not professional athletics shouldn't matter at all, since the caliber of talent shown in these games is far from amateur level (I.E Pick-up game). Also, last year's tournament was also featured on ITN, as well as the 2012 BCS National Championship Game - Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:33, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per HTD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Amateur sporting competition. No significant international impact (the mere existence of overseas fans is trivial). The nominator's identity is irrelevant. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Anc. -- Plasma Twa  2  08:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose its amateur and NTO in the news except on speciality website or buried in the MIDDLE of sports sections somewher.e Further ALL sports tream online these days. Though college footb all in the usa is much bigger than bballLihaas (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The NCAA tournament is highly influential and appropriately called March Madness by the media. I'm not American and I closely follow the games.  For those who oppose because it's amateur sports, please note that the Olympics are also supposed to be amateur. --Zanhe (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No they're not. That requirement was dropped around forty years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not because it is amateur, per se (the Olympics is amateur, after all), but because it has purely local significance. FormerIP (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a major tournament of any sorts, and even I know this as a pretty big B-Ball fan.!. We didn't post about that Cricket tournament either. Also, why do sport-related nominations get such a silly amount of controversy? --Τασουλα (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I must say, the nominator's attempts at special pleading are both unconvincing and unwarranted. Either Kentucky or Kansas basketball teams are older than Chelsea F.C. – so what? How is Chelsea relevant to anything? The inventor of basketball coached Kansas once upon a time – again, who gives a flying fuck? Does that insignificant factoid make this ITN-worthy? The semifinals had more people watching in the venue than [a number of randomly selected, junior-level events in a totally different sport] combined. Big deal. Either brush up on your rhetoric, or let the nomination stand on its own merits rather than some half-arsed irrelevancies. 87.114.115.11 (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: Completely agree with you. They are totally irrelevant comparisons, and way too much of this goes on at ITN/C --Τασουλα (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The tournament is a major news story in the US for weeks. The final last year was watched by over 20 million viewers, which puts it ahead of many other sporting events (I'm not sure, but I think that would be more viewers than hockey, tennis, or golf gets in the US for any single game/match/day of play).  I don't see why anyone is even discussing the amateur nature of the event.  How does that have anything to do with whether or not we should list it on ITN?  Isn't the amount of coverage something gets and the number of people it is interesting to what decides whether it should be listed?  In my opinion, being a major news story and one of the most watched sporting events in the US is enough to qualify it (though I can understand if other people vote against it because it isn't of much interest outside the US). Calathan (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment We're having the same debate every year all over again and the arguments haven't changed from year to year. Could someone just have a look in the archives for the previous years and summarize the decisions made? Would save us some time. If I remember, we generally don't post NCAA but I can be mistaken. --Tone 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The last two NCAA mens basketball finals were posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. I guess we should follow the lead then. --Tone 16:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we should see if there's a consensus to add it to WP:ITN/R, shouldn't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per above and it already had 400k+ views last month which shows readers would be interested to know about it.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this is in ITN/R then yes, otherwise it needs to be explained why it should be added to ITN/R. I've never heard of this tournament, nor would (I guess) most of the English speaking world.  If it's worth adding to ITN then it should be worth adding to ITN/R.  Get that consensus then we have no need for debate here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Over/under comment there is an element of irony here that no-one has dared nominate the latest US school massacre, which, if it had happened in London or Sydney etc would be a shoe-in. I guess that this kind of amateur sport, despite its interest inside the US, is considered utterly irrelevant to the world at large, and this is, after all, English (not American) Wikipedia.  Is there an explanation (beyond popularity in the US and some TV viewing figures) which makes this NCAA title relevant to anyone outside the US?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would expect that (for example) the Spanish Wikipedia would put items on its Main Page from Spanish speaking countries, even if those items were of little interest to people outside of those countries. I fail to see why items from English speaking countries (or is it just the United States?) are held to a higher standard here on the English Wikipedia. English being an international language is NOT a reason for the native speakers to be disenfranchised by those who are, in effect, borrowing this page. --Khajidha (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? I'm saying this "in the news" item is of little interest outside the USA, unless someone can tell me otherwise. It may be "published" outside the USA but what is its English-speaking relevance?  There is a tendency to think that because amateur sports in the US are considered important in the US then they are somehow relevant to the English-speaking world.  It ain't true.  Not at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented below, but I want to more directly reply to you to say I think this event should be in ITNR because I think it is more important to the English speaking world than many other sporting events already listed in ITNR. The sporting events currently listed in ITNR include many that are specific to individual countries, several of which I think would be of less interest to the English speaking world as a whole than the NCAA basketball tournament. Calathan (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as? Suggest you try to get this college tournament onto ITN/R rather than perennially debate its significance.  By the way, is it significant?  (I mean, outside of US college tournaments and US team drafts...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Such as the ones I listed below (which is why I didn't list them here). And I am trying to get this onto ITN/R (that's why I'm posting here, or is a separate discussion needed somewhere else for that)?  About the tournament's signficance, it is very significant among sports fans in the United States.  Many millions of people fill out brackets picking the winners of every game of the tournament, which normally isn't done with other sports.  My impression is that far more people fill out brackets than actually watch the finals, since many people's teams will have lost by then.  Also, the amount of coverage the tournament gets is quite large, and the fact that current presidents have shown interest in it might also add to the importance (e.g. Barack Obama fills out brackets, Bill Clinton attended the Final Four while president).  In terms of actual viewship, the Final Four of the tournament it is about on par with the NBA finals.  I think basketball is behind both professional and college football and professional baseball in overall popularity in the US, but is ahead of other sports (e.g. hockey, soccer, tennis, golf).  Calathan (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention how to "fill out brackets" which is entirely meaningless to me and probably most English speaking readers. I suggest once more if you wish this minority sport in colleges in the USA to feature regularly on the main page of English-speaking Wikipedia, you seek a consensus to see it at ITN/R.  Otherwise you're always fighting against this kind of argument that you're pushing a niche sport in an amateur league that only less than 5% of the world would even have heard about and which has a negligible global sporting significance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fill out brackets" means picking the winner of each game in the tournament after the teams are seeded but before the tournament begins. Anyway, I am proposing right here and now that this be added to ITN/R.  I do not think a separate discussion is necessary, as then we will just be repeating what has aleady been said, and anyway, I think this page will probably get more eyes than the talk page of ITN/R. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are some very good explanations and reasons here, though ultimately the coin for me flips on the side 'oppose'. I am not convinced that this event is high profile enough, notable enough, or reasonably established within its sport, for front page prominence. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI only it's actually a pretty big deal in the US. When Obama made his guess for the winning team, that alone was news. I realize it's very human interesty but just to give you some idea as to the media coverage. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've already voted support above, but I want to comment that I think this item should be added to WP:ITNR, or else many other sporting events should be removed. There are many items in WP:ITNR that seem like they would only be of interest to people from specific countries.  As an American, I have no idea what hurling is, let alone care what team wins the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship.  However, I understand that it is probably an important event for Irish people, so I don't mind having it be covered ITN.  Likewise, I don't really care who wins the Japan Series, the Grey Cup, the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, etc., but understand that they are probably big news stories in the countries where they are played.  For basketball, I had never even heard of EuroBasket or Euroleague Basketball, but if a lot of European people are interested in them, then I'm fine with them being covered by ITN.  I don't understand why so many people object to sporting events that are popular in the US, yet give a free pass to events that are popular in other countries.  I really doubt that more people in the English speaking world care about the Japan Series than about the NCAA basketball tournament.  The number of people in the US who watch the NCAA tournament is about 3 times the entire population of Ireland (including Northern Ireland), so I also really doubt that this event is of less intrest to the English speaking world as a whole then Irish sporting events are.  I'm not saying that those events should be removed from ITNR, but it just seems hypocritical to me that people seem to oppose American sports when lots of other sporting events that I would think are of less general interest are included in ITNR. Calathan (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with pretty much everything you say here. I'm not an expert on how things get "allowed" into ITN/R but this seems like a good candidate for discussion.  The only thing I fear is that you have attempt to equate viewing figures in college sport with some kind of global significance.  They're not the same.  Just because 80,000 people watch a college bowl game, it doesn't mean anyone outside the States gives a damn.  Just an example.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like you posted here while I was replying to you above . . . I thought we would edit conflict in that case (or has something been done to make less edit conflicts occur . . . but I did edit conflict with Khajidha while typing this)? Anyway, I'm not saying that higher viewership means something is of interest to more countries, but that it is of interest to a larger proportion of the people who are reading Wikipedia.  That generally would be because a larger proportion is from one country than another (e.g. more Wikipedia readers are from the US than Ireland).  Still, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with covering sporting events that are popular in only one country as long as they are a major sporting event in that country. Calathan (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in principle, I don't have an issue with publishing "popular" events, but as an "English" Wikipedia we need to be sure we publish notable events that are of significance and interest to our global English-speaking audience. Having said that, if someone can tell me that NCAA basketball is popular in India, South Africa, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Australia etc (where, for instance, cricket is notable, with an audience in excess of a couple of billion) then I'll be happy to see this kind of niche-college sport run on the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think things in ITN should be of interest to a large number of countries, then do you think we should remove things like Irish hurling and football, Canadian football, Japanese baseball, European basketball, etc. from ITNR? I doubt those sports are of interest to many people in the countries you listed. Calathan (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, someone argued that this topic had been noted twice before on the main page, so I suggested it should be moved to ITN/R so it didn't need this boring debate every time. Take it there (wherever "there" is).  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I'm suggesting above, I think "there" is here. This is probably the best place to decide if it will be added to ITN/R. Calathan (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the point I was trying to make in my last post, only you made it much better. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, there's still no good reason why this is significant outside the USA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose no evidence of interest beyond one country in this big old world. --Dweller (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm opposed on the grounds that the article is almost all results tables and very little prose. Even ITN/R sporting events need decent updates. To all the haters "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." This is at the top of the page, scroll up to see it. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Although the discussion here is mostly about significance outside the US, I think this should not be posted because it is a non-professional sport with people who are far from the best basketball players competing for this championship. The quality of this tournament greatly diminishes it. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Qaultiy of the tournament? Both teams in this game were extremely talented, in particular Kentucky. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment i dont really care if this gets posted or not but this is an yearly sporting event that is not on ITN/R that means we look at each year separately and post only if something significant takes place. Now simple question that i will ask is did anything special happen this year? If not then either it should not go on ITN, or if it does go up on ITN regardless then it should be added to ITN/R. Its getting annoying to see same debate every damn year -- Ashish-g55 00:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not what ITN is for, it not even the top level of the sport in the single country it effects, is it time to setup WP:ITN/NO for a list of events that should not be nominated ? Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it not what ITN is for? What does being the top level of sports have to do with anything? It's proboly eqaully as known as the NBA. Have you ever considered why the past to March Madness finals were posted?
 * The only things you would get universal agreement to on "ITN/NO" are things that wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing here anyway. I doubt you would get consensus on adding this to ITN/NO for example. --Sinophobe (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, definitely one of the more significant sporting events of the year worldwide (behind the super bowl, world series, olympics, Euro league championship) and a few others events. BTW, the non-professional argument is bullcrap, as it gets about as much media converge as the NBA does, if not more. YE   Pacific   Hurricane  03:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In America, you're correct. But "worldwide"? No. --Dweller (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, worldwide. A decent amount of results here. What harm will posting this on ITN have? YE  Pacific   Hurricane  14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You've linked to a search for "Google Austrialia" [sic], which then redirects to a search for "Google Australia". What does that prove about this having worldwide significance? 84.93.137.246 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per FormerIP. Khazar2 (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Where are people getting these terms: international, worldwide, global? These are nowhere to be found at WP:ITN. "International" is there though, in the deaths criteria. These arguments should be struck off as invalid. – H T  D  07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it shouldn't be about countries. If you're going to judge the importance of this keep it strictly in the world of Basketball--Τασουλα (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we should include in ITN mentions of victories in [not the top level] of American gurning, kabbadi, frisbee, tiddlywinks etc? The "world" of basketball includes, erm, the world. --Dweller (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also part of the greater "World" of sport in general...--Τασουλα (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, those sports are less famous than basketball. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Football (the one played with feet) is a massive world sport. Does that mean that a lesser football tournament that has some prominence in only one country, but with no interest from any other, is suitable material for ITN? --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument holds if hurling and Gaelic football aren't in WP:ITNR. It is. Nobody (and by nobody I don't mean no one elsewhere but you should get the point) elsewhere cares outside of Ireland. – H T  D  02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends, but I think your assessment is unfair comparison to this tournament. It has a lot of prominence in the US, and appears to some in other countries. I wouldn't not call March Madness "lesser" as it is second biggest competition in the US and probably in the top five or six worldwide. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  21:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local news story, in a sense. The rest of the world probably isn't interested; I appreciate the comments on the number of article views, but that doesn't mean the global readership cares. Pedro : Chat  21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a sport story, oppose as age restricted competition cannot, by definition, be the highest level of a sport. The issue here is whether it qualifies under some scarcely defined, but not unprecedented, popular culture category.  We are, I would suggest, looking at something that is better compared with Strictly Come Dancing, The Apprentice or Eurovision, or maybe the Oxford-Cambridge boat race.  Although the context happens to be sport, this is more likely to fairly judged as a natural shared interest.  As such, I would oppose it, as I oppose all those "popular interest" stories, but less strongly so than as a sports story, as we do sometimes feature this category.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW - you're welcome, rest of world, for this site. Geeze.
 * Forget about it It probably would have been up there instantly if it were a soccer tournament. After reading the comments above I have to ask - is there an American edition of Wikipedia? English does not have the luxury of representing a single country which means anything of significance to US must be penalized.


 * Honestly the Women's tournament had a much more significant impact than this, considering Baylor became the first NCAA basketball team men or women to have 40 wins in a season, has probably the most hyped women's college basketball player ever in Brittney Griner, and it broke so many records in the process. Secret account 16:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Invasion 30 years on

 * Oppose. The anniversary of an event, whether it's marked by a memorial like this or not, seems much too close to OTD's territory to me; doubly so given that the 1982 invasion is already mentioned in today's OTD box. GRAPPLE   X  17:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps changing the blurb to mentioning how the Argentinian president lashed out at the UK on the Anniversary which is quite significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * would support this way. There were numerous moves in the psyops war. Incl. UNASUR (or maybe just Brazil, Uruguya, Bevenzuela and Argentina) that blockaded ships from the isle, court case on te oil drillers, other verbal mongering, etc. If thats in the article it should nom'd here on the anniversary as special note (not the main anniversary). But maybe OTD would be better.Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ITN is not OTD. The anniversary of something is no news. --RJFF (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is right that this is not "just" an anniversary, but the topic for "In the news" should be the recent diplomatic dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom, not the historical event. But, as far as I know, there's no such article yet. Cambalachero (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something significant happens related to the anniversary. As it is, we don't post anniversaries just for being anniversaries. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose An anniversary, by definition, is not news. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this actually received a lot less attention than one might of thought in the UK (lack of any spirit), and all the Argentine's did was burn a few flags and shout obscenities, totally boring and not worth it. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Nothing happened. Memorials are not generally ITN worthy. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just an anniversary. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I'm just piling on, Oppose; it did make some news over here in India (which prompted some of my colleagues to open an atlas and search where the Falklands are), but its just an anniversary. If we start posting all anniversaries, we'll never hear the end of it.  Lynch 7  16:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all my additional view may matter. For the reasons articulated so reasonably above. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose every day there's the anniversary of something, that's why OTD exists.  Snowolf How can I help? 19:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Grapple X and Snowolf. Khazar2 (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Pal Schmitt

 * Support, head of state resigning. There's a long article about the whole thing at Pál Schmitt scientific misconduct controversy but it needs an update. --Tone 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * obvious support holy crpa thats big...but now we have so much politics ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support after clean-up. Support for stated reasons. But the updated article is rather Pál Schmitt scientific misconduct controversy than Pál Schmitt. Neither article is currently in a good state. The biographical one is rather unbalanced, having a "controversies" section, which is generally deprecated in BLP and should be diffused, and the misconduct article is of course a typical example of un-encyclopedic recentism. Both articles would need some cleaning up. --RJFF (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. Pál Schmitt appears to have been cleaned up since. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blurb is incorrect: it was not allegation of academic misconduct, it was a proven fact, and he was stripped down of his PhD degree. Crnorizec (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] UTair flight 120

 * support high casualty count and red timer with no news cming out..Theres also far too much plitics on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment an airline with a weak recent record, a typical crash with many casualties, but the worst airline crash so far this year so I say go for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, support for pretty much the same reason, aviation accidents have been sparse for a while now and this one is fairly serious. Also, there being survivors makes it more exceptional. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose we recently withdrew the belgian bus crash with 22 children dead, this is an accident of the same order. Crnorizec (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bus crashes and capsizes are far more frequent then tain crashes. And this is regardless of where it takes place.Lihaas (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Northern Mali insurgency advances

 * Support The situation is developing rapidly. This event left up to thousands killed and 180k refugees. Gao and Timbuktu consist about 54% of the whole country area. Remove the previous blurb.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  11:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i didnt get the part of the blurb. What did you want changed?Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I want the ongoing Malian blurb replaced with this one, but make it at top.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okey. that makes sense. I thought you wanted the blurb changed ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Mali is close to being cut in half by this rebellion. Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but change to "The northern Malian towns of Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu fall to rebel control" --Reader1987 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Lihaas' and Khazar's motives. --RJFF (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * dammit, in 2 hours...should have waited so timer doesnt go red ;) (although its defo top of intl news now)
 * btw- the current link mentions Gao and Kidal but Timbuktu is in #April.
 * queston should we add the coup link? its cetainly a reason for the rapid advance. perhaps "amist a coup crisis" or something(i kno wone was repalced for the other but still)Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be better to have linked which rebel group are we talking about.--Reader1987 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rebel group? Im talking about the coup page that was on ITN until this went up.Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, but the rebels should be linked, because they are mentioned.--Reader1987 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If thats needed then i think MNLA should be added as theyre getting the lion's share of mentions for Timbuktu, even though AD were involved (and are sharing control of GAO with reports saying they have full control of KIDAL)Lihaas (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Friends of Syria Group second conference

 * NAM meeting are bigger, G77, etc.Lihaas (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Participants have recognized the Syrian National Council as the "legitimate representative" of the Syrian people, which is yet-another blow to the international credence of the Assad regime. --hydrox (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * silly token statement dont mean wnanything. Itll just be retaliated as Syria have leverage with the PKK in Turkey and indirectly on Hezbollah al Hejaz in Saudi./Bahrain (alleged). Azawad is gonna be free, democratic, safe, stable long before Syria. 98(granted that may make syria more notable, but its just the same old token cycles going on for a year)
 * Also the Istanbul conference is poor wen compared to the focus on the Tunis one which will be teh focus if ITN'dLihaas (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi

 * Meh. She's obviously very well known and her election is significant — but only significant to Burmese. There may be a worldwide significance of the by-election as a whole, but not for just one particular seat in the by-election. By-elections are not general elections and aren't ITNR, so I hestitate to support as I'm not convinced it's really that big. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added 2 more relevant links and removed one as ITN doesnt add titles per the "Noel" caveat. Though "for the first time" could perhaps go too?Lihaas (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While this is not ITNR, there were several by (special)- elections that took place on the same day; this was also widely covered by the media so only a non-update should prevent this from going up. The blurb should focus on which party won the most seats, not Aung San Suu Kyi winning a single seat. – H T  D  14:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If its not ITNR then consensus is needed not just an uodate. Anyways, i oppose as this is not going to change the government or even its parliamentary power. Just cosmetic.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose when I said that "non-update should prevent this from going up", it means that it conforms to ITN's criteria, whatever that is. – H T  D  14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, not that important as the media tries to presents us (already for 20 years). If she becomes president, OK--Reader1987 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Usually I would oppose to present a by-election in ITN. But Suu Kyi has been the most prominent fighter against the Burmese regime, so her election is of special notability. It is also a major news story worldwide today, and symbolises the development in Burma. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be a big election with a landslide change. --RJFF (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless she wins the presidency. Otherwise this should focus on the party and its leader. Unless she becomes President this is more of a human interest story than significant news. -- Plasma Twa  2  15:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * She has a Nobel Peace Prize. If a Nobel Prize awardee wins a parliament seat, it's different from somebody or other winning a parliament seat, isn't it? --RJFF (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt Tawakel Karmen's electoral win would get her mentioned.Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Obvious major news headline - front page on The Hindu, CNN, Le Monde, Al Jazeera. Although, maybe blurb should be modified to say something like "NDP claims victory in Myanmar". (note: I think the news is important in spite of it being unofficial)  S Pat   talk 17:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They cant claim victory cause they dont have it. THOUGH one can say they win of pluraliry of seats up for electio, or somethign similar
 * Also the link dont indicate front page...just link to the specific storyLihaas (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Al Jazeera: "...opposition party claimed a historic victory on Sunday for Suu Kyi...". Also, I didn't link the front pages - here they are:, , , . My suggestion for the blurb: "Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy party claims historic victory in Myanmar parliamentary by-elections."
 * Okey granted, but WP cant link to party claims, its just media speculation. 45 seats is not victory (as mentioned in some recent election discussion on ITNC)Lihaas (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The real news here is that the government has allowed it to happen HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But they announced they would allow that to happen months ago, so that's not really a valid argument since it isn't in the news. -- Plasma Twa  2  20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They could have stopped her at any stage (they've done that sort of thing before), but didn't. (Well, they haven't yet.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose can't post every incremental update in Myanmar and this person. We posted her release from jail, we posted Clintons visit, enough already. When free elections are held in Myanmar, then it can go up. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - An international symbol of defiance elected to office? I'd call that INT-worthy. Opposes fail to convince me otherwise. HiLo makes a good point in support. Jus  da  fax   19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "An international symbol of defiance" . Didn't see any posters of her in the Arab Spring. Maybe that's a bit dramatic? --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per SPat--major global news story. Khazar2 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - major news story.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest wait until Monday afternoon to see if the "global news story" is just a slow weekend phenomenon. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Monday afternoon where? I hope you're not displaying a perspective from just one part of the globe. The news is front page material in Australia, where it will be Monday afternoon in three hours time. Where are you? HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * nslookup will tell you easily enough (I don't hide my IP), but since you're asking I'm in Florida, USA. It's 19:00 here. It's 00:00 in the UK and very early morning in the rest of the EU. It's 07:00 in Australia and in Indonesia. So now it is I who is hoping that you are not displaying a perspective from just one part of the globe. Let's wait and see if this is actually a global story or just Sunday filler while we wait for global business and politicians to screw something up on Monday. She's not resurrected from the dead after all, she's a protester elected to an assembly. Whoop-de-doo. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just gone 9:00am Australian Eastern Standard Time. And no, I don't want to push the perspective from my part of he world, (although we are closer to Asia than Americans, which should matter a bit - this is a global encyclopaedia), just wondering where you were to see such a different one. You may want to check out one of our more reliable source in this country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you zeroed in on my failed timezone calculation. Being closer to Asia makes it a regional interest piece for AUS, and as you've so aptly pointed out, this is a global encyclopaedia. Lets wait for the EU and USA and Africa and South America to decide if it is anything more than an irrelevant flash in the pan human interest piece on an exceptionally over-represented individual. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I zeroed in on your failed timezone calculation. You were clearly trying to make some sort of point with it, and you had already highlighted a timing issue, which I challenged. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. This is obviously a major news story, which is what ITN is about. It also involves a region of the world that we under-represent. Note: per Wikipedia consensus, the country is Burma, not Myanmar, so I'm going to be bold and tweak the blurb. FormerIP (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would consider Myanmar under-represented. I didn't check off of South East Asia, my laptop is a bit slow.
 * [Jan 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2012#.5BPosted.5D_Burma-Karen_peace_talks posted]
 * [Dec 30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2011#Burma not posted]
 * [Nov 18 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2011#.5BPosted.5D_NLD_rejoins_politics posted]
 * --98.203.99.251 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By "region", I didn't mean Burma. FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, I just don't have the interest to tally the noms by region so I searched out a couple related specifically to Myanmar. Off the top of my head you can add the Indonesian aircraft purchase and the sacking of Bo Xilai in Chongqing. There was a discussion recently about the frequency of stories from an area not being relevant, it got a major fire in Antarctica killed. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now, this is the top story on the generic UK version of the BBC News website. That doesn't often happen for a SE Asia story. It certainly wasn't the case for Bo Xilai or the Indonesian aircraft thing (I'm not even sure if that got posted BTW). This is a major story. That plus it being a story from a region that doesn't often get major stories in the Anglophone media ought to mean that it is a shoo-in. FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- At this point, the story itself doesn't have any real importance, merely the implications of it. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - This is one of the current top news items on most of the news websites. Clearly of more significance than the sale of some baseball team. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This isn't just another MP or just another by-election: I've never understood why there is such a tendency here to pretend that all things in the same classification are somehow equal. Aung San Suu Kyi is the stand-out figure of the campaign for democracy in Burma and the fact that she has chosen to stand for election and been elected is a massive development. This is receiving a large amount of press coverage and clearly of general interest. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Yes, I wonder if the Opposes have come from people who had never heard of Aung San Suu Kyi before reading this thread. It's the only serious explanation I can think of for such opposition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Marking as Ready - Note: the blurb should be changed to link to Suu Kyi's article, as the election one needs updating. Jus  da  fax   04:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not ready...there inst a lick of an update...further the supports are not unanimous for her article to be bolded.Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A credible and important story which has continued coverage around the world doktorb wordsdeeds 10:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment now been officially confirmed - . Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as a potentially historic election, even if NLD hasn't won an outright majority yet. Solidarity wasn't allowed to win a majority in the Polish election of 1989, yet it was an election that changed the history of the world. — Kpalion(talk) 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] NLD sweeps the board

 * Am willing to wait till official results, or we could post with the word "reportedly" in the blurb. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You really don't get the symbolism of Aung San Suu Kyi's involvement in all this. Why downplay her role so much? HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Official results have been released and confirmed the earlier reports. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment there are 45 seats. 44 were vacant from people assuming posts in government and 1 from a death. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support she's a prominent figure, spent a lot of time in house arrest and is a Nobel Prize winner. Her accession to the Parliament is a major event. Crnorizec (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support- This is a much better option than the one for only Aung San Suu Kyi. There is no way to dispute the importance of it. This should be posted. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;Bzweebl&mdash;</b> talk 23:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but.... The number of seats won is unclear at the moment. BBC are reporting 40. If it's more than that great, but we can't post a blurb that uses "reportedly" in this way. FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments The article National League for Democracy hasn't been updated yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support, historically significant election. If there's uncertainty about the exact number of seats won, the blurb can just say 'wins a majority' (or absolute majority) without mentioning the number. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. The article has been updated since. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Wins a majority" is not correct for a set of by-elections. The military still holds a majority, it's just that it is now slightly less of a majority. According to this source it has been officially confirmed that NLD won 43 seats, so maybe we could put that. FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that. "Majority" is misleading and should be reworded. --RJFF (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Change blurb to "Union Solidarity and Development Party retains a majority in the Burmese parliament" and bold the election instead of NLD. This would follow the same pattern used for another parliamentary election we post, the USA. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "A majority of contested seats" seems fair to me, no? I don't think we should be mentioning the junta's party at all, as they didn't do anything of note in the elections. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The ran a candidate, and still control a large majority (as pointed out by Karl below). The USDP may be unpopular, but for the time being they still control the parliament, so I see no reason not to mention them. I'm vehemently opposed to this even being posted, but if it has to be, lets follow the same format used for other elections, and not try and emphasize a particular movement. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Move' below UTair Flight 120. The election was on the 1st, the crash on the 2nd, so the crash should be above. --98.203.99.251 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the current posted wording is mis-leading. The party won the majority of the 45 by elections, but as stated in the NLD article there are over 600 seats in the parliment and the current governing party still has a large majority. (as per this statement in NLD article. in the Burmese by-elections, 2012, NLD won in all 44 seats it had contested, out of the 45 seats where elections were held. Although a small minority in the 664-member Burmese parliament, NLD thereby emerged as a significant voice for democracy in Burmese politics. Aung San Suu Kyi won from the seat of Kawhmu south of Yangon. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  17:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull In addition to my comments I think this should be pulled immediately as its incorrect. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to pester, but the blurb now says "a majority of contested seats". This is an improvement, but it seems like a weak way to put it. If my calculator is working properly, they won 95.5% of seats that were contested or 97.7% of seats that they contested. FormerIP (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)