Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 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.

[Posted] Davy Jones

 * Oppose The Monkees were significant enough that I know who they were, but not significant enough to be posted ITN IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a little more specific, he doesn't meet either of the three criteria in WP:ITN/DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I don't think this can be opposed for lack of significance. In their day, the Monkees were absolutely massive. If we can post Whitney Houston and REM splitting up, we can surely post this. However, I had a look through the article and parts of it seemed plain confusing. If it gets improved some then I might strike the "weak". --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - lead singer of one of the 5 most popular bands of the 60s and one of the top few "teenage heartthrobs" of the decade. If The Monkees were a contemporary band, there would be zero doubt in anyone's mind about posting his death. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Not quite at the level of international significance where putting the death up is justified. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Far bigger hit tally than many of those who have been featured here, and profile through the TV show that was way beyond that enjoyed by even the most popular bands today.  66 is untimely death for those who consider that a relevant criteria.Iconic character of era.  Without the Monkees TV show, we wouldn't have had the Jackson 5ive and all that came from that.  Wikipedia is for 40somethings as well as all you youngsters out there  Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Kevin, mostly. I am not wet behind the ears (indeed, in two weeks time, I'm even less wet). This is a significant (and upsetting) death of an icon in his time and from a band which did far more than just I'm A Believer. A significant development which fits the ever shifting rules of ITN.
 * Support per Kevin. He's right, the Monkees were as important to the disenfranchised youth of the 60s as REM was to the disenfranchised youth of the 90s. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I was a bit redundant to support, but his death is top story everywhere, being compared to Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston deaths by the publisher of Billboard. That's extremely significant., I don't think any other member of the Monkees deserve a posting in ITN if they die. Secret account 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the strangest uses of the word if I have seen for a long time. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bleh I meant when, was typing extremely fast and at work. Secret account 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. -- Jayron  32  19:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] North Korea nuclear moritorium

 * Comment not entirely sure that's the best article for it (or blurb for that matter) but this is a significant step under the new leader.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A deal with North Korea about uranium enrichment seems like a BFD to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support highly notable turn of events. --Nutthida (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I know the BBC is normally a reliable source, but so much of the image of North Korea is from the time when a not very eloquent US President made a mockery of the term "weapons of mass destruction". This whole thing is tied up in the legacy of Dubya propaganda. I'd like to learn a lot more about what the problem really was, and what is really happening now, before saying that this is of any importance whatsoever. HiLo48 (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Change Blurb to "North Korea agrees to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for 240,000 tons of food aid" Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1]  03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now updated the article and support posting - major diplomatic agreement with international significance. Suggest linking directly to update: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support What the hell, it is a big deal, and I'll support again when they resume enrichment in 12-24 months. We should put North Korea's nuclear program on ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment HiLo48's soapboxy comment notwithstanding, what do we do when North Korea starts enriching uranium again in a few weeks?--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply post it. They'll probably wait a few months before starting again anyway. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Whoa. Didn't see that coming. Marcus Qwertyus   01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Tokyo Sky Tree

 * Support. The article says the opening is in May but it has been finished today. Needs some updates regarding the tenses, though. --Tone 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Completion of the tallest tower in the world is a notable news. I remember we use to post such records in different categories.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support notable engineering, and completion is more relevant here than inauguration date. -- ELEKHHT 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support now, but not in May. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Syria

 * strong/oiosu oppose nothign happened a call buy a talkshhop means nada! though the referendum could be notable to get syria -related on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oiosu? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious? --  tariq abjotu  20:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this point, we currently have a sticky for that purpose. --Tone 12:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tone. If a cease fire is declared and talks being, we can post that. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "calls for" does not mean "something important has happened" doktorb wordsdeeds 13:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Daytona 500
This was posted last year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Most important single race on the NASCAR circuit, on par with the Indianapolis 500 in terms of significance.  The Daytona 500 is on-par with a Golf or Tennis Major event in terms of how it is treated within racing.  This one also had some unusual events, as noted in the nom.  -- Jayron  32  21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some perspective, please. Tennis majors are truly international events, with players from many countries from all over the globe. Golf less so. NASCAR? Minor news outside the USA. This posting may be justified, but such hype is unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs more references, especially in the race summary.  Spencer T♦ C 03:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minor interest sport. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then explain why we have eight events from this sport on ITN/R, including one pertaining to this league. --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I do think it's significant and do think it deserves posting, I really can't argue with HiLo48's argument that it's really not of international interest (so far as I know NASCAR doesn't even hold races outside of the US), and it's interest within the US even seems to be somewhat regional (more interest the further south and east you go). If consensus comes out that this is of enough international interest to post by all means consider this a support, but I have my suspicions that my perspective of its suitability for ITN is different due to living in the US, so otherwise neutral. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NASCAR occasionally has Canadian and Mexican races, I believe, and they now have Canada- and Mexico-specific seasons. --Golbez (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The results of the Daytona 500 was posted several times before, including last year. NASCAR is the biggest level of stock car racing, the most popular auto racing circuit in the United States, with the number of fans beating every sport but American Football. The main reason it's not as international as Formula One is because of their schedule doesn't give it enough time to travel to different counties (they had races in Japan before though). I would Support if we posted last year championship race and result, which was considered by many auto racing observers to be the best ever? I remembered they posted in previous years but I can't remember if they did last year. Way more popular than Indy Car here. If Danica Patrick won or finished in the top 10 it would have been a no-brainier addition for many of the commentators here. Even then Patrick participating in the race was global news and a significant milestone in women sports. Secret account 04:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the significance in this one. Mt  king  (edits)  05:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Right from the article: "The Daytona 500 is regarded as the most important and prestigious race on the NASCAR calendar, carrying by far the largest purse". Should probably be on ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not from the South, don't care for NASCAR so much, but in case people don't bother to read the article, it was postponed to the next day for the first time (by rain), then a racer crashed into a jet dryer (they dry the track with jet engine exhaust) which burst into flames and delayed the race so much it didn't end until 1 am, thus making this a little more than your garden-variety Daytona 500. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

[Reposted] Pritzker Architecture Prize

 * Oppose until an article has a suitable update. I don't think the page of the prize itself will work (all the winners are listed in a chart, so an update would not meet ITN guidelines); and the architect's article needs expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * itnr DOESNT need support/oppose. Further, oscar was prematurely posed.Lihaas (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional support The article is in not fit state. Interesting subject nonetheless. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of the award article, we should highlight the laureate's one. At the moment, it's a bit short indeed. Regarding the oscars, that was another case. There was a long article with lots of prose and updated table of laureates so the posting was in no way premature. --Tone 08:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I changed the blurb accordingly. Both articles have been further improved since. -- ELEKHHT 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. The Pritzker Prize is often considered as the greatest and most prestigious award in architecture. It is also listed as ITN/R. Low quality of the article is only a timely problem that should not thwart the news to be posted on the basis of notability.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. The updates say all they can say. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pretty much per 76.18.43.253. The article is sufficient, the update is sufficient (not sure what else could be said, and if anyone thinks something specific more should be added, then add it!), and it's an ITNR item.  -- Jayron  32  00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Temporarily removed. A 2-sentence update to the article is insufficient by even the most minimal of ITN standards, regardless of whether or not the item is ITNR. Feel free to restore once the article has been updated more.  Spencer T♦ C 03:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? First of all the whole article is new, is itself an update, as through this prize Wang Shu's international notability is clearly established. But a prize is a prize, I don't think an encyclopaedic article needs to go into details of who was the jury or whatever. Of relevance is Wang Shu's architecture, not the circumstances of the prize. Previous ITNs on the Pritzker Prize have been similar. What piece of essential information do you miss? -- ELEKHHT 03:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the blurb about the award. It certainly should be OK to post now, but I don't want to do it myself since I expanded the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Costa) MS Allegra

 * Oppose Besides the fire, nothing too terrible has happened. If it escalates to a full-scale disaster (as in Pirates hijack the ship, etc.) then I would reconsider.  Spencer T♦ C 01:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oh dear me. nothing seems to be going right for them at the moment. If there is mention of the incidents with the concordi and possible wider investigations (shutting them off the seas) then id support.Lihaas (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Chardon High School shooting
Not the most fatal shooting in history, but a school shooting receiving lots of coverage nonetheless. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragic, but not ITN worthy imo. Wikifan Be nice  23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose plenty of news coverage but Wikipedia is not a newspaper? Right? One dead too? Cmon. Tragic and all, but please. --Nutthida (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and after the news cycle dies, I will nominate the article for deletion. Speciate (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste everyone's time nominating it for deletion. The article would certainly be kept and much editor time will be wasted arguing it.  That said, I don't feel it is significant enough for ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thaddeus is right, on all counts. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Although tragic, the shooting is not of international historical significance. --   Luke      (Talk)   23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No international historical significance; what would be significant is if politicians in the US grow a collective backbone and realised that in a civilised society citizens have no need own guns and that this sort of crime could be avoided by banning general gun ownership. Mt  king  (edits)  07:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Get off your soapbox, and go and live there for a while. 58.7.251.19 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, yeah, countries with highly restrictive gun laws never have school shooting. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Death count is too low.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update The death toll is now three. I don't know what the "minimum" is people would consider needing to get to ITN, but I'm letting you know of the update. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Rio de Janeiro school shooting made ITN. It appears to me that the only major difference is that it didn't take place in the United States. EDIT: OK, I understand that the death toll is 10 for RdJ and three here, but we also featured 2010 Shanghai fire which only had one death and its historical significance was unclear at the time.  My memory is fuzzy but I also recall debating heavily about a shooting in Germany that may/may not have been featured. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As has been stated already, unlike other shootings of its kind, this seems to be minor (tragic, but still). These kinds of events need to have a wider significance and there is not much to come from this that we haven't already heard doktorb wordsdeeds 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Burlington derailment

 * Oppose, article probably should be deleted for non-notability. Speciate (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion, I have addressed notability on the talk page. --Natural R X 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat amusing that an incident with 3 deaths and 46 injuries has its notability questioned, while the school shooting above with 1 death and 5 injuries already has a support. Not really a comment on merits of either entry, I just like the incongruity. Resolute 23:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, that other one wasn't listed here when I made my comment. They both are unencyclopedic minor local news items that will be forgotten in 100 hours. Speciate (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Subject is plenty notable enough for an article, but not significant enough for ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So what's the threshold for a rail related incident to be included on ITN? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no official or unofficial level of death/destruction needed to make ITN. Sometimes, an event that results in one death can be highly significant, sometimes an event with many deaths can be insignificant.  For a disaster whose interest is based primarily on human deaths, I personally look for 20+. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. It's all qualitative, but this feels more like a tragic traffic accident, compared to the one in Argentina which was more like a disaster. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[Ready?] Former Ukrainian minister Yuriy Lutsenko sentenced

 * The update is decent, it's a high-profile politician, tentative support. --Tone 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose: Update is good, but the news coverage is not that substantial and I don't feel his former position is enough to warrant posting on its own. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The EU, US State Department and others have sugested it falls into a continuation of trials in Ukraine that look dubious........ But it does seem to me WP:SYNTH to state it like that in ITN... I am a bit surpriced it is not "bigger news" "outside Ukraine". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Article looks good, and it's one of those that if we put on the front page, we'll actually be meeting our remit of directing people to updated articles that reflect news. Let's shy away from the "not enough news coverage" angle here for once, it's significant and we can afford to put it up, so let's do so. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mansur al-Hadi takes over as Yemeni President

 * Support Mayor event, is worldwide big news. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this is the third time this has been nominated and the article still is in poor shape. If someone really wants this posted, they are going to have to do the article work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did not knew that the "shape of the article" was a criteria for ITN before I voted (never voted for an ITN before), sorry for that... It is indeed now in a too bad of a shape to post it on the mainpage of Wikipedia via ITN... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks' latest disclosure

 * Oppose. Nothing particularly dramatic about Wikileaks releasing stuff, especially when the target is a company nobody knows or cares about.  If the leak results in something major happening, revisit then. Resolute 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to our article: Stratfor has been cited by media such as CNN, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and the BBC as an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues.[3] Barron's once referred to it as "The Shadow CIA".[4] Your claim that it is "a company nobody knows or cares about" is simply untrue. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A notable event as this secretive organisation is laid bare in a manner never seen before. Highly controversial and very current, relevant and important doktorb wordsdeeds 21:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the media, at least in the US, has been strangely silent... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strange because as already mentioned, it appears on CNN, and certainly has global coverage. -- ELEKHHT 10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I created an article here on the leak. If this happens to go through, then you'll probably want to link to that instead. Silver  seren C 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I updated the proposed blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - whether people know or care about the company aside, Resolute is pretty much correct. This is very interesting, but many people were anticipating another major, significant leak, and the fact that it just turned out to be Stratfor emails was an anticlimactic disappointment. If the leak results in something significant, we should by all means post it, but I don't think this release itself is worth posting.  Swarm  X 19:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per doktorb mostly, nothing of this magnitude happened so far in this area. Certainly more notable than a train crash - currently posted. I am fully for high standards, but also for consistency. Maybe ITN should broaden its view and not only count those immediately affected by an event but all affected, on long term. -- ELEKHHT 10:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FARC gives up kidnapping

 * Tentative support, we've posted announcements of ETA ceasefire and similar. But indeed, the orange tag is a problem in the article. --Tone 18:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm - What section of the giant article was updated? These groups tend to break their agreements, or splinter apart into a dozen other groups that continue the practice. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article isn't yet updated, but it would be the section headed "kidnappings". --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And it clearly states "article needs updating". Sorry. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If some actor "promised" to give up drinking, would we post it on ITN? Factions, parties and political individuals make promises all the time. It doesn't get to ITN. Why treat these guys different. If they released a bunch of kidnapped victims or turned in their guns, that would go on ITN. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Don't really believe them tbh... But have they announced what's to happen with their current hostages? If they release them, it would be something worth posting.  Night  w   12:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted]84th Academy Awards

 * Support Biggest night in the film calendar.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we usually bold the film or the event? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. To be exact, X wins Y awards, including best picture. --Tone 19:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. We should only wait for the ceremony and the Oscars to be awarded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support We do now... doktorb wordsdeeds 04:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and suggest blurb to read "The Artist wins 5 Oscars, including Best Picture, at the 84th Academy Awards." This is ITNR, and the article looks in fine shape.  -- Jayron  32  05:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A few bolded parts of the table and a lukewarm paragraph in the lead? That's a poor excuse for an update. --  tariq abjotu  09:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what all Academy Award articles have been doktorb wordsdeeds 10:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OTHERCRAPEXISST...it needs a prose updae. otherwise we can pos ANYTHIGN thats ITNR (a la Yemen below)Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. If you find that there is information about the 84th Academy Awards that is missing from the article, no one here will stop you from adding it.  Demanding that others do work you could easily do seems silly.  For the record, I find the article sufficient, but if you do not, there is no one here trying to stop you from making it sufficient.  -- Jayron  32  18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW this had much more prose than BAFTA or BIFF both of which got speedy posted without contest. I just don't understand how the Dakar Rally, which is ITN/R, got nixed on the grounds that it was almost all results tables, and later everyone fawns CMD getting the "golden bear" at BIFF and posts in less time than it takes to say "Berlin International Film Festival". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's "Golden Bear" not "golden bear".  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bin Ladin compound demolished

 * far from ntable an dbarely in the news widely. its also an issue a year ago, not today. (Although on the anniverary it may be notable)Lihaas (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're free to differ in opinion on its notability but there's front page coverage at the BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, and Xinhua. Seems to be wide coverage to me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, very minor part of the wrapping up of a major story: akin to announcing the release of a prisoner whose conviction was notable, or completion of the execution of the will of a person whose death was ITNworthy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose buildings get knocked down all the time, this one just had a notorious occupant. The front page of BBC also has Oscar predictions and we're not going to post those are we? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the clear and well articulated reasons given above doktorb wordsdeeds 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fire at Comandante Ferraz Brazilian Antarctic Base with two people dying

 * Marked ready as a quality sourced update and length. I wouldnt support it personally, though it could be a minority topic (when do we feature science in Antarctica?)Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Sad, but it is an intrinsically dangerous place, those who died were not individually notable, two is not an extreme death toll, research base has not given rise to high profile discoveries, low profile in news media (6th in World news on BBC, no entry for Comandante Ferraz on Lemonde.fr, not in top 11 world stories on elmundo.es) Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support news out of that region is pretty rare, and it was a total loss of the facility, so I'm inclined to give it a pass on the notability scale. Decent update. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, we really don't get many news from Antarctica and the article is fine. --Tone 16:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because very few people live there, so not much news emerges. It does not make minor events more noteworthy.  At is peak, the population of Antarctica is about 1% of that of the Cape Verde Islands: have we had 100 times as many stories from there? Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm not sure how that's relevant, except to suggest that population is not directly proportional to the number of stories from a region nominated on ITN. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that if it is not surprising that a place has few stories, it is not a reason to promote stories. There are 100 times as many human reasons to have a story from Cape Verde, but we don't lower our threshold to include that place either.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * very few people live in the International Space Station but if this is destroyed, that is a News too. Right now we have 3 news from America and 3 more from Europe, 1 from Antartica not gonna hurt.--Feroang (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It wasn't the only base in the antartica.  Agree with Kevin, it wasn't that notable a base before.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Who on earth has marked this 'ready'? It is a tragic accident but nonetheless wholly inappropriate for the front page. Is it highly notable? Unusual? Work placed deaths happen all over the world, that it happened in a remote location is just a curious additional extra. I can't understand why a nomination with oppose votes is marked 'ready'. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost every posted nom has at least one oppose. I can't imagine how ITN would function if one oppose disqualified an item for a [Ready] tag, and thus prevented it's posting. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't understand the hate on for this item. We post similar items all the time: mine collapses, fly ash spills, oil rig fires, hell if the toilets don't flush on the ISS it gets front page coverage. Too bad, I really thought this would be an easy pass. 2 for, 2 against, minority topic (science) get Ready tag IMO (no I didn't set it, but I think it deserves it). --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The habits of the editor who put on the ready tag on this have been raised at WT:ITN. The practice of these tags was introduced with no discussion at WT:ITN, and there is no clear guideline about when it should be used.  We have a template that allows indication of whether the article has been updated, so I can't see what purpose it serves.  But it was never agreed that it is a way of someone trying to close the discussion.  I would ask the unregistered editor to recount: I see 4 opposes.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4 now, 3 when you posted your reply. I don't care much about the ready tag editor. From the guidelines above "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header. A [Ready] tag should not be added by the nominator of the item." Seems pretty clear to me. *shrugs* --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, doesn't seem to me to be have lasting impact. Interesting things happen in Antarctica all the time; boreholes to buried lakes, country-sized ice shelves breaking loose, and so forth, and we run those. Speciate (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Voter suppression in the 2011 Canadian federal election

 * Oppose claims and possible impacts, two things that are no good at making to ITN. -- Ashish-g55 00:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have changed the blurb accordingly, even though it was a headline from earlier, but I never saw it in the current events. --Natural R X 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will also add to my comments that this is notable because the phone calls that were made are in violation of the Canada Elections Act. --Natural <font color="#228b22">R <font color="#000000">X 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose until such time as it goes from being a claim to being actual legal action. --Golbez (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article states there is actual evidence of voter suppression, not just a claim. --<font color="#000000">Natural <font color="#228b22">R <font color="#000000">X 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant until an official body (like a court) has stated such evidence has merit. --Golbez (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, mere investigations are not news, and this won't really be news unless it results in the election results changing, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait for final verdict. Once Elections Canada is done, they'll convene a royal commission, and we should get the final verdict some time around 2025. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, so much truth. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  03:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to future events?--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: ITN has previously rejected a similar case, that had a final decision: Pimentel vs. Zubiri electoral protest. – H T  D  03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral It's quite a curious case and I can see why it could attract interest to a wider audience were it given front page prominence. I can see 'the other side', however, as it is only one small opening part of what will be a wider investigation doktorb wordsdeeds 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[(Re)posted] 2012 Quran burning
Very notable, likely to influence the situation in Afghanistan negatively.Oleg-ch (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking ready pending support. Good article and updated (although one needs to note the withdrawal of ALL ISAF advisors as well the investigation which does not involve Afghans and the section of the interior ministry being used purely by ISAF personnel)Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support but query the proposed blurb. It makes it sound like the Quran-burning directly caused the 23 deaths. Like they were standing too close or something. Maybe 23 people are killed during protests following the burning of Qurans by US forces in Afghanistan. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable. Axe the "Muslim holy book" and just include quran. The phrase just makes the blurb redundant. Reword the blurb to be more neutral, infers the US literally set fire to the quram but from what I read it seems the burning was unintentional. Blurb implies guilt and malice. Wikifan Be nice  01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think "unintentional" is correct. It's not like they just fell on the fire. Could perhaps use the word "incinerated" so as not to confuse with Quran burning as we know it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, with the provisions given by Wikifan. This number of deaths would be ITN-worthy if part of an ordinary bomb blast; the religious uprising and international crisis hooks makes it triply notable. Shrigley (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question FormerIP raises a good point. Was this a Florida style book burnin' or were these copies destroyed using a procedure routinely employed for other material at the base? If the latter, incineration is correct, if the former, keep the burning. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the exact circumstances of the burning are unclear, but reports have used the word "incinerator". On the other hand, the burning seems to have been discovered because Afghans happened upon the charred remains. I don't see how that fits. Maybe we'll have to wait for Wikileaks. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support definitely ITN worthy. incorporate wikifan's suggestion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like protests are spreading to other parts of Afghanistan. The German and British government pulled their civilian employees out of Afghanistan. There is a lot of news coverage of the protests. --   Luke      (Talk)   03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue isn't one word. The problem is "set fire." It is very inflammatory. Incinerate is rather hyperbolic and I cannot seem to find the word used in a source. FWIW, most reliable sources have yet to assign guilt, rather the focus is mostly on the 20+ people killed in the ensuing protests. Better phrasing would be, "x people are killed in protests after the burning of Qurans at a US military base." Wikifan Be nice  03:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Set fire" is indeed inflammatory. --FormerIP (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  05:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been removed for some reason. ITN really needs an update now. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:ERRORS, the article included copyvio. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked the adding user why he did so but he hasnt yet replied. Ive also reworded a lot of stuff there so if theres no reason we can remove it tomorrow.Lihaas (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support re-posting - important ITN item. Please repost asap. Jus  da  fax   20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-posted the copyvio appears to have been addressed. Article could really use some work (IMO), but the consensus was to post as is and copy the copyvio was keeping it off the MP.  I did rework the blurb language to try to be as NPOV as possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "were" burned though...the ssue is the protests not the burning and that is a result of the burning.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

new Yemeni prez
Not while the article is as it is: the opening sentence describes him as the vice president: oppose any blurb that suggests that there was a meaningful democratic exercise. Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated, just needs source (i cant find the numbers of his win). Also there is no suggesting in the blurb saying it is a "meaningful democratic excericise" or not. standard bklurb per all these things.Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not yet article needs a copy edit. The fragment "al-Hadi voted at about noon." is un-sourced. There are no sourced in the boycott or violence sections. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some comments: firstly the blurb should say 'an uncontested election'. The election article is very poor and cannot be bold-linked in that state. Al-Hadi's article is in a slightly better shape, but is still uncomfortably short. I have no objection to posting this, but one or both articles need some major work first. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ITNR already sas subject to an update. The current prose is from tv, so needs an online source.
 * There is also nothing and no precdent to mention "uncontested" users can read that on the page. we dont need to push a [pov. it doesnt even say he WON an election, just says afeter being elected.Lihaas (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a great deal of POV in simply saying "Hadi wins an uncontested election". I support mentioning that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau
– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nom - Dutch prince, whos in line to British throne and the Commonwealth realms, son of Beatrix of the Netherlands.


 * Oppose. Not dead, and the avalanche was days ago. Perhaps would've supported then, but this is just a 'latest development' that is not news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unfortunate but not major in world or even regional politics. 1145th in line to the British throne is a bit low. --Golbez (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Annan named UN-Arab special envoy

 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support now this is a good, even handed way to get Syria on ITN. There is no good update though. What's his mission? Who is he meeting? When? What outcomes are expected? etc. Should probably go in the Syrian Conflict article, not the Kofi Annan article. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point, we've just posted a sticky about Syria. --Tone 15:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Garry Conille resigns as PM of Haiti

 * support notable enogh for me. Also less represented part of the world. Reasons: added instability in a powder keg...ogoes along with other factos that create uncertainity.Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant sourced update.Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  16:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm removing this. Resignations are not technically ITN/R. --  tariq abjotu  16:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Princess Estelle of Sweden

 * obvious oppose, if ever there as one" please, its not even lining the throne.Lihaas (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article lacks citations and apart from the fact that she was born and who her ancestors are, there's no real content available. Also, I don't remember posting births of people in direct line for the throne (somehow I expect a lengthy debate when it comes to the British throne, but at the moment, the quality of the article prevails for me here.) --Tone 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just as much I would oppose the birth of a child to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. A baby being born is not news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we should only include heirs apparent or presumptive, at most. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose no- just because there hasn't been a blurb for a while, we don't elevate non-news to news (we don't have 30 minutes to fill so the ads have something to go round them). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Buenos Aires train crash
Strong support. Very high number of killed and injured, and the accident happened in the capital city of Argentina. Train disasters are not all that common in developed countries. This will probably have implications for rail security in Argentina, and maybe in other countries as well. Nanobear (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - but only when the article has been bashed into some shape. 50+ killed is a significant number and the crash is ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per above. A relatively large train disaster, and Argentina is rarely seen on ITN. Grey  Hood   Talk  19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been expanded since this comment. Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support obviously a very big disaster with high death toll and damage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support only if article is expanded. At the current 1.5 paragraphs, it is not fit to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support  major disaster in a country rarely seen on ITN.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I will work in this article and try to expand it as possible. Cambalachero (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Done, I included all the info I found (except for trivia, such as specific passengers telling their minor stories). Of course, more info may become available as time passes and more details get known and further reactions take place. Cambalachero (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Markign ready as substantial update/. though the title need a change. Cant it go on the station page instead ofthese needless recentism pages?Lihaas (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The number of injured people has grown from 550 to 676 since the morning (see article for more recent references). I updated the blurb with it. Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support thanks to a great job by Cambalachero --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting.  Spencer T♦ C 01:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds killed in Homs; Colvin, Ochlik, too
*Support Some of the most dedicated, respected and renowned journalists in their fields. Beyond notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nom. Notable per Hetherington-Hondros precedent. --bender235 (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose NYT chap died last week without mention. Judges assassinated without mention. Nothing intricnsically notable here. Only european notability (if that). Although i would definately support a sticky for syria. (and libya's post-war conflicts)Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT reporter Anthony Shadid died of allergic reaction to horses, not shelling in Horms. That's a slight difference in my books. --bender235 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * no mention of the first western (french) reporter of france 2 killed in early jan. Same violent death as this in my bookLihaas (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not usually a valid complaint. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its cited as a precedent above...not to mention the OR reasoning listed above tooLihaas (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Doktorbuk. Edit: More than happy to explain further. Both were notable, award-winning journalists; Ochlik's photography was featured in numerous prominent works internationally and just this month he was awarded 1st place in the general news category of the World Press Photo of the Year contest (one of the most prestigious in the world). Colvin had won two British Press Awards. The deaths drew reactions from Rupert Murdoch, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, etc.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 14:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to explain, since we dont vote count, where this 'ORIGINAL RESEARCH "dedicated, respected and renowned " comes from? Reason indicated since.Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Her eyepatch. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this is pointy an arguement to illustrate anthing. Nothing is "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" especially since the same deceptive reasoning is cited as a reason for support below it needs to be queried how that true
 * But an "eyepatch" doesnt indicate "dedicated, respected and renowned" in any field. Just the same as a fractured arm doesnt.Lihaas (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * She had an eyepatch. Your argument is invalid.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, vastly different case from Shadid (I supported that too, for the record). Killed in a military attack, veteran journalists (especially in Colvin's case), not dissimilar to last year when we posted the photographers getting killed in Libya. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Both notable and have already articles on Wikipedia, it would be nice if the 100 deaths of yesterday city bombardment is mentioned too --aad_Dira (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Note: Why is it, actually, that we have a February 2012 bombardment of Homs and a Siege of Homs article? I changed the link in the blurb to the latter, but eventually those two articles should be merged. --bender235 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there is too much information for one article so the most notable part(s) are split out, as per standard Wikipedia practice. The Feb bombardment is the correct article for the update and link. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose original blurb. This reeks of double standards. Two Westerners get killed and suddenly we post this, after weeks of dozens of Syrians per day being killed whilst we did nothing? Neither journalist seems to have been particularly notable or well known beyond their field. The only reason we're even considering this is because they're from the West. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would put it to you that that's a POINTy oppose. I can understand Lihaas' oppose on grounds we didn't post Shadid's death or the death of the first French journalist. But yours seems to be based on the premise that 'if we don't post Arabs dying, we can't post Westerners dying', and that to me is trying to make a point and being disruptive to ITN by making it. For what it's worth, Colvin was a veteran foreign correspondent. Surely you don't expect journalists to be known "beyond their field". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Modest Genius, but I think you're misjudged on this one. Yes, ordinary citizens are killed every day. That's a tragedy we mark in our own ways within and beyond Wikipedia. But here we have two....symbols, if you like, of the Syrian violence which transcend the domestic and represent the world-wide. There is always support for nominations which involve the killing of civilians by Syrian forces and indeed there has been at least one such story posted on ITN this year. That these journalists happen to be from the West is a detail parallel to, but separate from, the wider context. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone nominated a story about civilians dying in Homs I would support it. I just don't think that two Western journalists should take precedent over hundreds of Syrian civilians. You're welcome to disagree with me if you like, but I'm not being deliberately WP:POINTy. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that ITN needed two white dudes to die before the carnage in Syria gets in but MG beat me to it. That's not a straightforward oppose though, as ITN needed something from Syria to be posted, since, as IP 78 said, ITN has had blow-by-blow coverage in the Greece situation. – H T  D  16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The question is whether going with this particular angle is POV. My conclusion is that it is not. Russia and China consider Syria to be an internal situation which is not the wider world's business. In that context the death of outside journalists is significant, albeit they may report the story in very different ways to the West. I would point out that RT are running with the story . As for the "Euro-centric" claim, Colvin was American. —WFC— 17:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ModestGenius. I know the Western media is putting this into their headlines. But I believe Wikipedia should try to be better. Thousands have been killed in Syria recently, likely including many Syrian journalists. In this light, it would be somewhat arrogant of us to post the deaths of two Western journalist. (Note that I'm not accusing the editors who supported this of anything. I hope I can disagree without offending anyone.) Nanobear (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you consider RT to be part of the "Western media". —WFC— 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about "some Westerners" dying in Homs, it is about two notable journalists dying there. If, god forbid, Razan Zaitouneh would've died in Homs, it would be ITN too. --bender235 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per ModestGenius. Journalists reporting conflicts and killed in conflict zones is too common a story. De-marked [Ready] for now. Grey  Hood   Talk  19:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Name the last time a journalist of this prominence was killed in conflict zone! Wait, let me help, were it Hetherington and Hondros? --bender235 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to lack of update. The bold article does not mention their deaths, and their personal articles only mention that they died in Homs. Secondly, they were killed in a war zone by indiscriminate shelling. Certainly tragic, but not ITN. I could support if they'd been deliberately arrested and executed by the regime for reporting on the activity in Homs. To Modest Genius, we're over due for a Syria article, find an incident, do a page, and nominate it. I'll support it, even without an EU bailout or some bitchy students. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a reworked blurb, which mentions both the civilian deaths and the journalists (in that order) would be acceptable to everyone? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * support I think it's ridiculous to oppose because we haven't been updating with civilian causalities. It's a weak point of ITN; simmering conflicts with no particular new news are usually not featured.  This came up with the 2011 Japan earthquake, the Occupy protests, and maybe even the Libyan civil war.  A week or so ago it was proposed that we update on the Homs bombardment but it was opposed due to nothing new coming out of it.  This is a major story that's being reported by the media and is definitely ITN worthy due to the Libya photographers present precedent. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support w/new suggestion: Hopefully a different blurb will appease everyone and get this ongoing conflict on to the main page. "Two foreign journalists become the latest deaths in the ongoing bombardment of Homs that has resulted in over 500 deaths during February." --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this article (February 2012 bombardment of Homs) is sufficiently updated unlike Siege of Homs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the point isn't that they're foreign journalists, it's that they were notable. The whole premise of arguing about their nationalities is what is derailing this nomination. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly awkward to say something like "In the bombardment of Homs that has killed over 500 people during February, journalist Marie Colvin and French photographer Rémi Ochlik become the latest victims". I don't see how to reasonably get the names in there "second" as MG desires.  I think (hope) everyone supports posting a story about the conflict, but not everyone supports singling the reporters out.  Thus my attempt at compromise. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about
 * ALT2: "Over 500 people are killed in the bombardment of Homs, Syria, including foreign journalists Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik"


 * or something similar? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not against that per se, but the news story isn't really "500 people are killed" because that implies it happened all at once, which is not the case. How about:
 * ALT3: "The death toll to date exceeds 500 as continuing conflict in Syria kills foreign journalists Marie Colvin and Rémi Ochlik"
 * --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's an unhealthy perspective on display here that a couple of white, Christian, English speaking westerner deaths are somehow more important than the hundreds of Syrians deaths routinely occurring in these troubles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment And there's an unhealthy perspective from you which seems to be, in short, trolling doktorb wordsdeeds 23:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And then there's this sickening stupidity of people discussing here, not realising that this is about the death of an award-winning, world-renowned journalist, regardless of her nationality, race or whatever. --bender235 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And how much do you know (or even care) about the talents of all those dead Syrians? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about some young peoples' talent. This is about a clearly notable person dying under extraordinary circumstances (see ITN death criteria).
 * Also, if I had to decide, Homs (and Syria in general) would have been ITN more often. As a matter of fact, I personally nominated and/or supported this multiple times in recent months (Nov 12, Nov 16, Dec 19, Jan 28, Feb 8). But just because we decided against posting this back then doesn't mean we have to ignore it this time. --bender235 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * People have their reasons and you dont need to make pov subjective judgement vcalls on whats "sickeoning"Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you (HiLo) should not make assumptions about people's motives. As it turns out some/most of us want to get a story about the Syrian conflict on the mainpage and this presents the opportunity to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A sticky would do and would get near unanimous support at the moment as its top of th enews nearly everyday.Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What's happening in Homs is ITN-worthy when an appropriate story can be identified. But, because we generally avoid posting blow-by-blow, I think it would demonstrate poor judgement if we were to decide that the appropriate story is about the deaths of two of our "own", tragic though they are. --FormerIP (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And for the millionth time, this is not about "one of our own" dying. Those weren't some unknown, irrelevant European tourists. Colvin was a world-renowned journalist, Olchik an award-winning photographer. That's what makes them notable. --bender235 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Their notability is not in issue. But we don't post people's deaths just because they are notable. --FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But we do post people's death if they were significant to their field (which, given the media response, even you should be able to recognize) and died unexpectedly or tragically (clearly the case). --bender235 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is far more fluid in its enforcement and is generally on a case-bycase basisLihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The Syrian uprising is notable and the ongoing bombardment is worthy of return to ITN even after only a few weeks since the last appearance.  If the deaths of high-profile foreign correspondents is the hook we use for putting the story back up, then I'm okay with that, but the focus should still be on the larger violence and thousands of dead.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose reporters in conflict zone take this risk willingly. We dont post soldiers dying in war now do we? I'm sorry but this nom makes lives of Syrian civilians seem utterly useless. -- Ashish-g55 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If they were like Victoria Cross recipients, or otherwise notable (like being a NFL player), yes, we certainly would post soldiers dying in war. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Surprised at the opposition to this. Notable individuals in a notable circumstance. The opposes are mainly based on an emotive perspective and incorrect comparison with the appalling ongoing civilian death toll. The 2 events are separate, hard though it might be for some editors to accept it. Leaky  Caldron  23:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well emotion and the lack of a viable update for me... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is the people of Homs, telling you how significant Colvin's and Ochlik's death was to them. --bender235 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask them if they think it's the most significant thing to have happened to them this week. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: as nominator, I changed the blurb, now focussing on the civilian casualties first. I wonder if this results in another POV rant, since there is no official source for the number of casualties. --bender235 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - notable individuals in a notable circumstance sounds right. notable because of their  role  kind of thing as much as anything -it  doesnt 'make lives of Syrians seem utterly useless' imo - just a stupid non sequitur that. Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Slight reword for whats more certain than the vague. SHould be much more likely to be supported now.Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the new blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Colvin was regarded as the finest foreign correspondent of her generation in the British media. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose dictatorship in mideast kills its own people - sorry, but it's disturbingly not news - the fact that two westerners get caught up in the slaughter changes nothing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. However, that's not the situation.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So if we'd write "World-renowned journalists Colvin, Olchik were killed at some place by someone's artillery", it would be ITN material. But since it happened in Syria, where people have been dying for a year now, it's no big deal. Absolutely weird. --bender235 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Colvin and Olchik are notable enough to satisfy the ITN death criteria on their own, and would oppose posting their deaths if hey had been killed in, say, Pakistan, Somalia or Georgia. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if Colvin and Olchik were really that notable, why did neither of them have articles until they were killed? Colvin Olchik <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't like that argument. We, for example, posted an ITN death story about the Mexican government official who was killed in a helicopter (the name escapes me right now, but I think he was around 45 years old). hbdragon88 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So is there any interest in posting this blurb? The majority of the oppose !votes would appear to be addressed by emphasising the whole event, not just the journalists. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you basically killed the discussion with that "Western POV" gibberish. Right now, it seems, the consensus is: the Syrian conflict is ITN worthy, but if we'd post it right now it would make us look Eurocentrist, so we better don't. --bender235 (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Sticky?
There seems to be a lot of support for a sticky on Syria. I was tempted to just do it, but put it in the sandbox instead. Let me know what you think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I think this would definitely be worthwhile.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * more worthwhile than the above though im neutral. Though i would add libya, abahrain and posibly yemen. (Arab Spring?)Lihaas (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SupportI would had preferred if we post a story instead, because ITN is ignoring hundred of deaths daily in Syria for a much less significant events, and found this a chance to post a news about it, but this sounds good as well --aad_Dira (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Neutral I removed my support from the nomination above because of the amended heading and blurb. A sticky would be a solution of sorts, but Wikipedia is not a news ticker, we're supposed to be as neutral as we can be, and I'm worried that the reaction to the (perfectly fine) nomination above is skewing our neutrality doktorb wordsdeeds 09:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've been advocating a sticky for over a month. Considering the relatively uneventful past few weeks, it doesn't seem like a sticky would undermine ITN status quo ATM. Probably smart to post an article for the 50+ killed in Iraq this morning. Don't believe libya/bahrain/yemen into the mix. Syria is basically the center of drama as far as the international community is concerned. Wikifan Be nice  10:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support " Two Westerners get killed and suddenly we post this, after weeks of dozens of Syrians per day being killed whilst we did nothing." The real double standard is when mass killings occur in Europe/America, ITN proposals are typically expedited straight to the front page without serious opposition. On the other hand, when hundreds of civilians are killed in an Arab country, the community is largely silent or indifferent. The fact that two mainstream journalists were killed is unfortunate. But remember editors rarely respond in great numbers unless some American/European is killed in the crossfire. Wikifan Be nice  10:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question What would be the criteria for removing the sticky later? The end of violence in Syria? It's been going on for a year already, what if it goes on for another? Can we really leave "conflict in Syria" stuck to the bottom ITN for a year? Then what about other conflicts? Can we give every festering conflict a sticky? I don't mean to downplay the Syrian conflict, but I think as a practical matter, this needs to be addressed. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * a nm thereof ot remove per consensusLihaas (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support a sticky, but I would like there to also be a regular blurb. I also share the IP's concern above as to when the sticky would justifiably be removed, but we can always discuss that on this page as we go along. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the sticky link leads to February 2012 bombardment of Homs article rather than 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, and this bombardment is not expected to last a whole year --aad_Dira (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Posted: I made the sticky live, since there is clear consensus to do so. It should be removed when the Syria story is no longer front page news on a daily basis.  The presence of the sticky does not rule the possibility of also posting noteworthy developments as they happen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would there be any objection to changing the sticky target to the omnibus 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article rather than the Homs bombardment article? I would think it would serve our readers better to give the broader overview; the Homs bombardment is linked from the parent article anyways.  Just an idea.  -- Jayron  32  13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support changing linked article to 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. The sticky should be as broad as possible, especially since the text over the link is "Conflict in Syria". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked the bombardment article since it is the one where the day-to-day updates go and this is ITN. However, I am not opposed to the broader article being linked instead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * theres gorowing conflict in Hama an d Damascus tooLihaas (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ As there were no objections, I have updated the sticky link to the broader article. -- Jayron  32  06:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Khader Adnan hunger strike

 * Oppose Not convinced by the notability or world-wide interest of this story. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment — sources? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support large, sourced updated article. Reactions from HRW and UN. Abbas met with UK, EU, US and China. International coverage. Check the article, it's pretty good. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It's not the most earth-shattering news, but the article is rather good. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 30,000+ year old plant regenerated

 * Support as creator of article, but the blurb could be improved. The 31,800 figure is too precise, as radiocarbon dating shows a range. It is best to say "about 32,000 years old". "Piece of fruit" is misleading; these are hard seeds. Botanists call them fruit. Better to use "seed tissue". Speciate (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the suggested changes. The word approximately can probably be left out, as round numbers are generally assumed to be approximate anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. A rare type of story and major scientific record. Grey  Hood   Talk  02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the term "scientists" in the blurb is vague. Reports also indicates somethign not conclusive. If its conclusive we dint need the caveats. At most cite the journal the discovery was published in.
 * Marking ready dueto timer an dmore than sufficient updateLihaas (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Looks like potentially Nobel Prize winning research.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Being in the news for a week is going to be the most that ever happens. Speciate (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we change the title to concerns in lin ehere or at least ahve an explanation? Thx.Lihaas (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hun? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "scientists report" is vague. Should take that out entirely. Suggests csomethign rumoured not definate and thats not ITNLihaas (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting the article (as I did when you raised this concern on my talk page ), "the accomplishment has not yet been independently verified, and previous claims of ancient regeneration have often not held up under scrutiny." —David Levy 08:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Greece Bailout

 * We posted it last time, whatever article that was for can be used aain. Although i would wait till the transfer confirmation (unless the acceptance is the done deal an dno going bacl)Lihaas (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral We posted the bill + riot, we posted the fall of the last government, and now the bailout, maybe we need a Greece sticky? At the same time al-Assad levels Homs and the consensus is "yawn, old news, can't post every single xyz update in Syria". I'm not supporting or opposing this nom, just saying... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but different wording. The blurb should mention the total amount of the loan and the debt that was written off.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, I#m surprised this got overlooked. Greece_financial_crisis looks good as an update. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posting due quality update, lack of objection, and no updates to template in a while. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yemeni election

 * Weak support - Hadi ran unopposed so the "news worthiness" of the result is trivial, but we generally post all national election results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is a right old state, not sure the nomination is worthy in the first place but the article is in need of serious repair. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its ITNR, the article will be posted solely pending the quality of the article.Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And unfortunately the article is a mess. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Single Atom transistor

 * Oppose as suggested. If scientific opinion is that the single atom transistor is highly notable of itself (and it sounds to me as though it might be), that could easily become a support, but merely beating a prediction is not ITNworthy.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry that's why I changed the blurb to put the 'beating the prediction' in brackets - I think (though I know little to nothing about it) that the single atom transistor is significant in it's own right. EdwardLane (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I really want to support this, but it belongs in Transistor or in it's own article. Need to know how it was made, some theoretical and practical applications, etc. Right now it's a 1 line bullet point in moore's law. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I considered nominating this, but decided against it on the basis of the NYT story which suggests it is in fact not the first such demonstration of single atom transistor, but rather rather just the first made with "normal" techniques. I would reconsider if a significant update of History of the transistor was undertaken explaining the significance of the advance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kevin. If it was a very notable scientific innovation, then it should be supported without mentioning the prediction that was beaten. The innovation itself is not so notable for now, and the information compiled in the blurb could be an interesting material for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mexican prison fight

 * Support Interesting story, article could use a bit of expansion, but it seems ITN worthy, and a good enough start. Main page attention could help an article like this get better.  Has anyone checked es.wikipedia to see if there is more there?  -- Jayron  32  04:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Article has been expanded from 2 paragraphs to 4 and a half. As such, it is ready for posted if deemed ITN worthy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. nearly 50 deaths in a prison riot; surely that's very rare.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very notable story. Update is adequate. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. Curiously, we have two prison incidents-related stories on ITN now. --Tone 08:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Amend blurb on German president, Joachim Gauck nominated

 * I suggest amending the current blurb on Christian Wulff's resignation, to reflect that the government and opposition have agreed on the candidate to replace him. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support amended blub and reseting date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Could this change be considered ready? Josh Gorand (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting at this moment, although the development appears very straightforward, let's just wait until he's officially elected. --Tone 08:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - when appointed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * wait obviously per above WHEN appointed (if?). nominations are never ITN.Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as this also will apply to Mitt Romney, that's fine with me. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Presidential nominations in the US are the result of a long and drawn out process, garner international attention, and the winner attains real power if elected to public office. The President of Germany is a figure head. That said, I oppose amending the blurb for the same reason as Tone. If he had been appointed interim president, it would be an obvious support. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The German President is not appointed, but elected by the Bundesversammlung (on 18 March). Since the parties nominating him have a vast majority (>80%) in it, he's virtually certain to be elected, so I'd consider him designated President. I'd therefore support updating the Wulff blurb, but without resetting the date (the choosing of a successor is a "natural" consequence of the resignation). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Golden Bear

 * Support Very important film festival award. Nice updating by the IP editor too.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Award is listing on ITN/R and update is sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R and an update? Count me in. Jus  da  fax   21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason as BAFTA. It's just a big results table. Since this will likely post anyway, the bold link should be the 62nd BIFF and not Caesar Must Die. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - with respect, I'd disagree with the oppose. The film's article makes it clear that this was an upset win by a very unusual film, and I think it's OK to bold the film article instead of the festival. But either way, this is an internationally important award, and the fact that it is ITN/R gives it more than enough 'juice', as they say. Besides... no ITN item added for TWO days? Let's post this asap, please. Jus  da  fax   22:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The content from Caesar must die should be ported to the BIFF article, which would put in context. The article itself would have almost zero content if it wasn't for the award. Probably best to port the content, bold BIFF, post per ITN/R and AFD Caesar Must Die. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AfD for CMD?! Please come back when you are relevant.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of my post, it was nothing more than a blurb about winning the golden bear at BIFF. No cast, no reviews, no infobox, no nothing. I stand by my initial statement, and if it hadn't expanded (it has), I would have come back in about 6 months and nominated it for AFD, after porting the relevant bits to BIFF. Please don't use hateful words like "come back when you are relevant". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A film that has won the Golden Bear is obviously not going to have its article deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, although I agree that the bold link should not be to Caesar Must Die. --FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull due to lack of update. The BIFF article has one paragraph of text; that is well short of our criteria.  Link to the film article if that has a better update. Sorry, perhaps I missed some text waaay down in the article; it's still a disappointing article for the main page, and I don't think it meets the '3 well formed paragraphs' criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT instead of complaining!  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It might help if Caesar Must Die was the central article chosen just as A Separation, Honey, etc. were in previous years. BTW, the 62nd Berlin International Film Festival doesn't look much different from the 61st Berlin International Film Festival which got the go-ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.184 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Italian marines arrested over shooting Indian fishermen

 * Support The article has a slight anti-Italy slant and some grammatical curiosities, but overall it's pretty good. Decent size, map, sources. Googling uncovered that the two Italian marines are now in custody in India, so this will probably linger for a few days. Finally, given that India has a substantial English speaking population, I think this will have some interest on en.wikipedia.org. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wrote the first draft of the article - while I tried to keep it neutral, its possible that some inherent bias may have crept in. Please let me know if you want me to look at any particular language. [Edit: Have included more neutral sources and the position of the Italian foreign ministry.] Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a comment on the articles talk page, but by the time I got back there to leave it everything else seemed ok to me. Doesn't seem to be generating much interest here though. Too bad, nice job with the article anyway. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support To me, the importance is borderline, but the article is exceptional. As such, I am inclined to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Heavyweight title

 * Comment: I strongly agree that boxing deserves some sort of representation on ITN. I'm not fully conversant with the international framework for the sport either but from what I can make out, we have both amateur boxing (Olympics/Asian Games/CWG etc) and professional boxing (for prize money). In professional boxing, we have 4 bodies - WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO. It doesnt seem to have a unified international structure (like FIFA for football or the ICC for cricket). I suppose we can feature the top one or two organisations from amongst the four. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can help identify it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A sport that cannot organise a proper world championship reeks of non-merit among their respective "championships". I doubt if you could ever gain agreement on ranking the bodies. These "championships" are an insult to those who have won real world championships in the past. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support pending update The WBC is one of the four boxing Majors, and this is the Heavyweight Championship, which has historically always been the glamour weight class. However, the article needs a better update; it has only a single sentence.  If the article is updated with a paragraph describing the fight, I'd fully support.  -- Jayron  32  05:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apart from the viewpoint that we should not be giving any promotion to an ill mannered thug like Chisora, or credibility to a sport that gives him a platform, there have been, by my calculation, 70 heavyweight "world championship" fights in the last 10 years. Given that a story remains typically on the main page for 5-6 days, that would mean that boxing occupies ITN space for 10% of the time.  Major unification bouts (in any weight category), those that genuinely gain widespread attention of those beyond the fan base of the sport, might merit inclusion, but not routine defences, many of which (including this one) are widely perceived to be of little sporting merit (Haye-Harrison anyone?)  Kevin McE (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I do agree some of the tricks Chisora's pulled and has pulled in this match and those before were very unsportsmanlike, and did not do anything good for the reputation of the sport or the title. But then again, someone being a "thug" is not really a real argument. --hydrox (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons given above. Boxing has become very hard to support for ITN because of its desire to split into little grouplets. I don't agree with Kevin's view about promoting "ill mannered thugs", but everything else is pretty much what I think. Boxing titles would be front page news....if boxing wasn't so..."boxing" doktorb wordsdeeds 09:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: A passing read of the comments above seem to suggest that ITN shouldn't post anything about boxing anytime, while we have such events as hurling and Gaelic football ("Top level of championship in multi-national sport") in ITN/R. Not only is that stupid, but reeks of bias. The problem is to select which boxing fights would make it to ITN. I had previously suggested on ITNR that any fights that include both boxers in the top 5 of any of the pound-for-pound lists by The Ring, BBC, ESPN, Yahoo Sports and probably Sports Illustrated (if they maintain such lists) could be considered (not necessarily ITN/R) for discussion. I'd reckon the Manny Pacquiao vs. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. fight will pwn the page view stats of events such as the massively-supported-in-ITN Heineken Cup. The boxers in the pound for pound lists usually don't meet each other very often: this is not tennis where the best players face each other in the final; some don't meet in their entire careers, due to size difference. Another good milestone is if a boxer wins his fifth world division title. There had only been five quintuple champions in history, so the sixth person to be included in the list should be at least considered for discussion in ITN, and not dismissed outright. – H T  D  09:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could rewrite that in plain English, without any insider jargon? I'm sorry, but to me it was largely incomprehensible. If the best "players" don't meet each other, there can be no real champion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "real champion" in "all of boxing" since boxers have weigh around the same a day before the fight, hence there are chances where the best players would never meet. For example, a fight between Klitschko and Pongsaklek Wonjongkam is a mismatch since Klitschko is a lot bigger than Wonjongkam, and the former will beat the latter to a bloody pulp before the first round is over (in short, it's not fair). This is unlike Nadal vs Djokovic where they'd meet every time they make it to the final even though Nadal (hypothetically) is a lot bigger than Djokovic. Hence, there are "pound for pound" rankings to sort out which boxers are the best assuming they had the same weights. Hence "pound for pound." (This is the same in sports such as mixed martial arts and weightlifting.)
 * The issue with these "pound for pound" rankings is that these are completely subjective, hence in my examples I used as much as 4 lists; most of the time these lists include the same boxers in the top 5-6 anyway.
 * In a boxer's career he usually starts in the lower weights, as he progresses he steps up to a heavier weight limit. If a boxer is really good, he can win at least one title in any of the four orgs (WBC, WBA, IBF & WBO) or the lineal championship in every weight division. If he wins at least once in five weight divisions, it's a rare achievement. – H T  D  10:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I can see its hard to identify a ITN-worthy championship/combination of championships, I agree with HTD that we shouldnt be dismissing this outright, we should at least make an attempt to see if we can arrive at some possible criteria to identify major boxing achievements rather than give it up just because it looks difficult (which admittedly it does). I am not sure if this is the right forum and we will also need few people with a more than decent knowledge of the sport to step up and take this forward. (Comment edited once) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support when substantially updated tl;dr: If we post boxing, there should be certain standards of what is a "big match". And this was probably one. –– Vitali Klitschko is–almost without a doubt–one of the greatest legends of contemporary heavy-weight boxing. There are some opposing opinions above on the grounds that professional boxing has no one well-organized international body. These comments are true but entirely trivial, and if followed systematically would lead to us not never posting any pro boxing. Obviously we should post some pro boxing, it is anyway one of the most popular sports in modern history, but it's not ITNR because matches have to be decided on a case-by-case basis due to the fragmentation issue. This match–I think–passes the threshold as a very highly-anticipated and reported bout ("klitschko vs chisora" on Google News gives >2000 articles) and for reasons including the fact it was for the most esteemed weight class (heavyweight) title, Klitschko's legendary standing and what happened in the weight-in and the anticipation it built. Also, Chisora is a Briton, so this is of special interest to one of the main target audiences of the English Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment shouldn't the news caption reflect the fact that Chisora was arrested after the match for brawling with David Haye ? <font color="#006600">It Is Me Here  <font color="#CC6600">t / <font color="#CC6600">c 14:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What would be real news is if the sport(?) of professional boxing could sort out its internal conflicts and harmonise into one global organisation with standardised rules and truly recognisable champions. Only then could non-boxing fans accept claims such as this one on their merits. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL at the question mark after boxing. That means persuading you is next to impossible. (LOL). If boxing isn't a sport, and darts and chess are, then what is a sport?
 * The harmonization of boxing into one organization, if it ever happens (it won't), is immaterial. The power is brokered by the matchmakers; these orgs just sanction matches; their title belts are next to worthless as the main prize are the guaranteed purses and the pay-per-view payoffs. In fact, this was the deal breaker in the Pacquiao vs. Mayweather; earlier this decade Pacquiao was ranked among the best, and he didn't even have a world championship.
 * Also, the heavyweight title isn't well followed anymore. Probably because the Americans suck at this weight level. – H T  D  02:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * People often cite the split of title belts as a reason nobody cares about boxing but I also think the fragmentation of boxing might be overrated; people may be overlooking other reasons for boxing's decline (a growing perception that it's 'barbaric'; lack of title holders from the US, UK instead of Ukraine; the rise of other sports). Boxing has never had a global authority with the power of FIFA, FIBA, or the IOC.  That said the US also sucks at soccer but that sport is plenty popular.  --Johnsemlak (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think boxing as a sport and boxers as personalities' popularity is way too underrated. It's just not widely popular in the "right places" (UK and most of Europe) -- it should be popular in Asia and Latin America (by extension the Latino community in the U.S.), especially more so on the latter, since aside from football/soccer, what other sport would the people follow? Certainly not handball, cricket or rugby. – H T  D  06:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per comments by Hydrox and HTD. If we can post European Handball we can post this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Amine El Khalifi (attempted suicide bombing)

 * Oppose Same old story. Plots are thwarted on a regular basis. The bombings in Thailand/India attracted more coverage both internationally and abroad. And in addition to the actual bombings, many plots were thwarted and multiple arrests have been made. Again, not relevant as far as ITN is concerned. Wikifan Be nice  11:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A successful sting operation is not front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 11:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * as NOTNEWS that silly article shouldnt even exist, but canr be bothered with an AFDLihaas (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Libyan civil war anniversary

 * Oppose Anniversaries rarely merit a place on ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 10:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If anything, this is On this day... stuff. --bender235 (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This wasn't included in On this day due to showing 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising 3 days ago and it's an unwritten role to not included topics from same category (Arab Spring in this case) in short time period.  Bahraini Activist  Talk to me 10:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it wasn't included on OTD doesn't mean it's a fit for ITN. It isn't — it's not "in the news". Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is more a story for the "On this day" section.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

German President resigns

 * See Feb 16 under "Resignation of the President of Germany Christian Wulff". It is already discussed there. – sgeureka t•c 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Shadid's death

 * Unexpected death of reporter considered among the best in the business. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support one of the more well-known newspaper correspondents, reaction to the news is huge very unexpected death. Secret account 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspected this might get nominated. I was considering whether or not to do so myself when I first saw the news. I'm on the fence — he was a highly notable, skilled, award-winning journalist, and the death was unexpected. Yet the death was from a tame cause, unlike when we posted the photographers who were shot dead in Libya. Leaning support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd say he was well-known in the United States (and maybe in Britain.) The Pulitzer prize is only given to American journalists, so that he received one does not automatically mean he was internationally notable. I'm not opposing the nomination, but can someone point out whether he was well-known outside the angolophone world too? Nanobear (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He was fairly well known in the UK, along with other Pulitzer prize winners. It's certainly not an obscurity here ;P --Nutthida (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ. Weak oppose. --FormerIP (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When I say "Fairly well known" I mean in the circles of his profession, and when I say the Pulitzer prize is not obscure here, that is also what I mean. But then the Pulitzer prize is not exactly unknown to the general public here, though ;P --Nutthida (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, it's only given to American journalists. If it's a story/photo from the A.P or similar wire service I would imagine any journalist is eligible, such as Greg Marinovich or Jahangir Razmi. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose notability --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I find this an unexpected death of a notable figure skilled in reporting on some of the most sensitive war zones on earth. ITN-worthy, and indeed what I consider ITN to be for. Jus  da  fax   19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure if on assignment in a combat zone, but not from an asthma attack. FWIW I also opposed Whitney Houston on similar grounds. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Gary Carter death
Albacore (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Hall of Fame member should meet the "very important in his field" criteria IMO. Update is skimpy, but not sure what else could be added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose hes hardly "Widely" known in the us and there are several hall of famers in each sport not to mention then adding all 4 major sports (does the MLS have one yet?) in 1 countyr alone...Lihaas (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that he's hardly "widely" known in the US, but it's worth correcting the erroneous belief that the Hall of Fame is limited to US players. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, domestic leagues'Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Being a National Baseball Hall of Fame member just shows that he is one of the 297 best players of a particular sport from a particular country -  not that very notable, is it ? So unless someone bothers to demonstrate why this is notable, its an oppose. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, while I agree simply being a Hall of Famer isn't notable as far as deaths go, I want to point out that it doesn't simply mean being in the HoF means he was "from a particular country" (i.e. the U.S.). Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I mistakenly presumed so because of the "National" tag to the hall of fame. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not notable enough a person for ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 10:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Simply being a Hall of Famer might suggest he was a good player, but "importance" in the death criteria isn't judged on whether he was a Hall of Famer or not. News hits for "Gary Carter" before his death are limited. His death was not unexpected given his widely-known health condition. All in all, it's not notable enough for a mention on ITN, it's one for recent deaths. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like baseball and all, but I don't think he's notable enough for an international encyclopedia. Midnite Joker (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Carter was a good player but he wasn't a significant person in the field. His selection to the HoF was actually one of the more controversial in modern BWAA candidates, especially with the sabermetrics crowd. I do see a few scenarios that adding a baseball player death is warranted to ITN, such as Stan Musial or Hank Aaron but not in this case. Secret account 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No way..--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - important in the world of baseball, but no waaaaaay for ITN/R! --Nutthida (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN/R? Wut? – H T  D  05:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What? It just means in the news recent...unless this falls under a separate category, oh so sorry -.- --Nutthida (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just step in before you get torched for that. ITNR usually refers to In the news/Recurring items around here. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I held off after finding out that he's clueless, but ITN/R as "recent" made no sense. All of the nominations here should be recent... – H T  D  13:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly dont attack the other editor, and more so that he admitted his fault. Comment on CONTENT!Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly re-read again. No one's attacking somebody. – H T  D  22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose He failed on the National Baseball Hall of Fame balloting in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, before succeeding in 2003. I don't follow the sport but he doesn't seem like a really major figure. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab sentenced
--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - notable, as far as sentencings go.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose sentencing for such terrorism failures is common across Europe, Asia (India), etc. Currently there was also an extradition hearing for whatshisface and other crimes of conviction just penidng extradiction.Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Someone being sentenced for an unsuccessful attempt at terrorism doesn't seem noteworthy enough to me and a significant update to the article is unlikely (there isn't much to say.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: For reasons given by Lihaas and ThaddeusB. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable crime but not a story which fits ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 10:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

UN resolution on Syria pass
--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but with shortened blurb. "The United Nations General Assembly passes a resolution condemning Syria (for ongoing violence, etc.)" Something along those lines.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose as purely symbolic holding no weight whatsoevr. At this rate the north kosovo refrendum would be ITN material too.Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article for update can't possibly be United Nations General Assembly. What about 2011–2012 Syrian uprising instead? --FormerIP (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support And I prefer if we mention the resolution support of the Arab League plan for the Bashar Al-Assad to relinquish power --aad_Dira (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Weak support Modified the blurb. Still think this should simply be stickied since hundreds of people are being killed every week. Wikifan Be nice  01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This story has been (will be) superseded by events pretty quickly doktorb wordsdeeds 11:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Resignation of the President of Germany Christian Wulff

 * Developing story as of now, but if the Bundestag lifts his immunity, this should be ITN. --bender235 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: He does NOT face impeachment, only lifting of immunity. There's a big difference for the Bundestag between allowing prosecution by independent judiciary, and impeaching the President themselves. Even if the intended prosecution is successful and he is convicted, Wulff could still legally remain President (though there would of course be huge pressure put on him to resign). Still, it's a first in post-war Germany, so weak support if the Bundestag acts accordingly. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He would face impeachment. Its just that in Germany impeachment doesn't necessarily result in removing him from office. --bender235 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't call this "impeachment", nor does Wikipedia. Impeachment (with removal from office) is possible in Germany, as explained on WP: "The Federal President of Germany can be impeached both by the Bundestag and by the Bundesrat for willfully violating German law. Once the Bundestag or the Bundesrat impeaches the president, the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether the President is guilty as charged and, if this is the case, whether to remove him or her from office." (See also the corresponding German article Amtsenthebungsverfahren.) But this (remote) possibility has nothing to do with the present situation of lifting of immunity (which is also routinely done for MPs accused of some crime, e.g. for Jörg Tauss in 2009). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, but like you say if his immunity gets lifted, that would be ITNable. --FormerIP (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? According to the Washington Post article there is an "initial suspicion" of wrongdoing; however such "... often does not lead to charges in Germany." I would agree that resignation or prosecution would be notable, but a mere investigation could as well never lead to any legal proceedings. --hydrox (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The lifting of the legal immunity of a sitting president would be quite significant, wouldn't it? --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support but modify, Christian Wulff has resigned this morning, and that's what should be ITN. Hektor (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

President of Germany Christian Wulff resigns, over allegation of accepting advantage during his tenure as Prime Minister of Lower Saxony.


 * Modified. For obvious reason. --bender235 (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Wulff's alleged wrong-doing has been dominating the German news since Dec 2011, now it's the ending point that concerns the world (for a day or two). – sgeureka t•c 10:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction is updated, and that's what we need at this moment - there is already a whole paragraph about the scandal behind it. Posting. We can add the image as well. --Tone 11:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is frankly terrible and doesn't make very clear what he's actually done. &mdash; foxj 11:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull. Article has only one sentence about his resignation — i.e. no reaction etc. That's an insufficient update. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest replacing the photo of the Greek PM with a photo of Wulff. The former has been up for several days now, and is not even directly related to the news story it is linked to. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Amalthea  15:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Modify: "Corruption" should be (re-)replaced by the correct (somewhat weaker) "accepting (undue) advantage". A non-smiling photograph of Wulff (if available) would also fit better to this occasion... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Comayagua prison fire
Nominator's comments: Article obviously needs expanding but latest update on deaths is frightening, and expected to rise. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Very high death toll and significant media coverage. However I don't see how this fulfils any of the minority topic criteria. The article requires expansion though. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, my mistake on a copy-paste of the template. Apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Is being called "one of the worst fires in Latin American history" --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support Given the death toll and the echo through the media it is really one of the worst fires ever.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Conditional support, pending article expansion : "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" (WP:ITN). The event itself is certainly significant enough. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been adequately expanded and it is appropriately referenced and formatted. I checked a few sentences for copyright issues and found none. Nice work, especially in such a short time. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support not wholly unusual - prison fires in developing countries are not infrequent - but the high death toll takes this out of ordinary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - article has now been adequately expanded by The Rambling Man & myself enough to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Damn good article, especially for a new one and well source. I would have suggestedmerging with the main prision article (should be one)Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur, that's a decent article now. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Post it now.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted with slightly different phrasing to the blurb, though I can change it back to the proposed one if it's preferred instead. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! Very nice article, even more impressive given the time it was made in.  Night  w   10:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lion Air/Boeing deal

 * The source says that this is the largest order ever for Boeing, not in aviation history. Is there a source for that claim? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes all say "Biggest aircraft order in history" or "the single largest contract in commercial aviation history." Covered in a range of news sources. 58.7.251.19 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Support then, but the article needs a proper text update, including discussion of the record (at the moment there are just numbers in a table). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support once the article has a sufficient update. This seems like a significant record, and I've notified WikiProject Aviation in the hopes of inviting more perspectives and to solicit an appropriate article update. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The posted item should make clear that the dollar figure reflect US$. Also, as it's not clear whether the record is the dollar amount, the quantity of aircraft, or both, so I recommend rewording the blurb, perhaps to: Indonesian airline Lion Air orders 230 aircraft from Boeing in a US$22.4 billion deal, a commercial aviation record. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in light of C628's update at Lion Air. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated. C628 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Is "a commercial aviation record" referring to $22.4 billion, or the number of aircraft ordered? It needs to be clarified. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 22:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this, it's "the largest commercial airplane deal ever for Boeing, by both dollar value and total number of airplanes," and since it's also being reported as the largest order ever from any manufacturer, the record would seem to apply to both dollars and aircraft. C628 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support This is definitely a record-breaking order and that's a lot of planes. Also, it would attract editors to the article which could use some improvement and expansion. Also, I have notified WikiProject Airlines about this discussion. &mdash;Comp dude 123 04:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support decent, sourced update. Minority topic double whammy (business + asia), and a red timer. I'm putty the ready tag on, I'm sure I'll be denounced for it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Notable for reasons discussed above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Mohammed Lamari

 * Oppose - The article is not really updated (except that it notes the date of death), he has nearly no relevance outside Algeria, and the death was not unexpected or tragic. It is not discernible how his death should have a major international impact (see In the news/Death criteria) This is just for the obituary. --RJFF (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, primarily due to insufficient update size: the article reflects his death in the lede but provides no additional information. I also share RJFF's concern regarding the breadth of impact, though may be swayed by a high-quality update. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Smallest chameleon



 * Weak oppose. Whilst the smallest vertebrate was signficant, we can't go posting the smallest of each and every category of them (in this case the smallest chameleon). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason that Brookesia micra could not be the updated article? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing particular. Just that Brookesia micra hadn't existed before, so couldn't be updated. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support, then. It's not a major development, as others have pointed out; however, it's a decent new article and I think that ITN should emphasize the quality of new or updated content more than the newsworthiness of the news. If it's not featured at ITN, then with a bit more text it would be a good candidate for WP:DYK. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it to Brookesia micra. Other updated articles: smallest organisms, chameleon, Madagascar, Brookesia. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though weakly - this isn't a major-major breakthrough in its field, nor does it have long-lasting implications or turn anything in its head. As adorable as that little gal or guy is, I just can't see strong enough reasoning for it to be in ITN/R. --Nutthida (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Opppose Typical ...and finally fodder, not a main headline-grabbing story.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Curiosity stories often don't get my vote but this seems decent enough. It does have the smell of DYK about it but in the absence of anything else it could be worth a shot. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated for DYK. Also, it currently exists in six other languages. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DYK does seem to be a better venue. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DYK is more appropriate yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Israeli embassy attack

 * Oppose I (metaphorically) yawned when I heard this on the news. Nothing stood out in the report I heard to make it special. Maybe I can be convinced, but it would take some doing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: A terror attack near South Block should satisfy the notability threshold. Although I have my doubts on the significance of the rhetoric, especially since the claims have been made even before any tangible investigation has been conducted. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the reasons given above. This isn't a development, it's just another tiny blip along the tediously long stretch of Israeli history. Of no notability whatever doktorb wordsdeeds 19:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Netanyahu's childish and idiotic blathering aside, the coordination gives it some notability IMO. That said, the update isn't very detailed. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a significant development. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the low siginificance of the event. There has been no major reaction to or consequence of the attack, which itself caused minor damage, no fatalities and only one non-minor injury. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose One could add Thailand, too, now, but still oppose. Iran's attacks on diplomatic targets are nothing new - remember the Iran Hostage Crisis anyone? And Israeli/Jewish targets are what Iran likes most anyway, so this is nothing more than than SSDD, IMHO. Now, if one of those countries breaks relations with Iran over any of this, that would be a horse of a different color. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No, sorry, I don't remember the hostage crisis because it was 33 years ago! LOL LOL LOL @ "nothing new". Agree on Thailand though, whoever is doing this, it seems to be coordinated. It's too bad Netanyahu opened his fat disgusting face and painted this incident with the Iranian brush. The article is now doomed to be another Israel vs Palestine battleground, no quality update for it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] First launch of Vega

 * The update is short at the moment, when this is fixed, support. --Tone 11:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support notable first flight. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, maiden flight and technically ITNR, could we also mention that it was carrying the first Hungarian, Romanian and Polish satellites. I would also suggest dropping the "international", since although the spacecraft were from several different countries, no individual spacecraft was from more than one, which I believe "international" would imply. --<font color="#115566">W. <font color="#364966">D.  <font color="#496636">Graham  (previously GW) 17:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Flight commencing a new rocket program is a highly notable news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The story is definitely notable, but as of now the article has hardly been updated at all. —WFC— 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh the update is a line item on a table (of 1 item). I guess the rest of the article supports that item. Meh. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely a first, and international. All good. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment noteworthy article but it needs SOURCIGN on the upadate and article as a whole.Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support As WDGraham said, the first and last launches of any type of rocket is ITNR: So we just need to look at the update now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The update is a bit better now, still not ideal but I guess that's what we'll get. The article is about the rocket, not just about the particular launch. Ready to post? --Tone 14:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The update is disappointing, but the article is OK. Might as well post; it's not as if we have any other alternatives at the moment and the timer is red. I think you should drop 'international' from the blurb though, since it really doesn't add anything. Marking [ready] <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, ready to post. However, I'd like to mention that that was the first successful launch of a new rocket type - as this is the reason why this story is on ITN. Any way to write this in a short way? --Tone 15:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The first launch of ESA's Vega rocket successfully launches nine satellites, including its main payload LARES
 * something like that? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, posting. --Tone 16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, I think David Levy's rephrasing is better than my version. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is. David, thank you for always doing second-checking of the blurbs. Appreciated. --Tone 11:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek austerity vote and protests

 * Oppose has there been a year without protests or riots in Greece? This is just one piece of the European debt puzzle. I think that if it doesn't pass, and there is a significant response from the market, we can re-visit, but right now it's not that big of a deal. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to BBC these are some of the most massive protests since 2008, including several buildings ablaze, 80,000 protesters and half a hundred injuries. But I do agree it will not be as big deal because the crucial vote was passed. --hydrox (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The plan was passed just minutes ago. --hydrox (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The Greek crisis is very notable. And the protests look significant. Thue | talk 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support more significant the usual greek protests. Spirit of 73. Could get messy.©Geni 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * support as highl notable and passed ith overhelming majority as it as pretty much what the EU asked for, alternatively wait till the bailout money comes in (but then this part maybe stale if its not in this week)Lihaas (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The is apparently the largest austerity protest in Greece; according to Channel 7 Sydney, more than 100,000 attended the protests. In my opinion the Greek austerity plans itself is already significant enough to warrant being posted. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 09:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Africa Cup of Nations
Support It's obviously a major tournament. Zambia have won on penalties.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * African Cup of Nations, in football, concludes today. It's contintental championship, ITRN as well. --Tone 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support especially since the winner is completely unexpected. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It should read: "Zambia win the 2012 African Cup of Nations beating Ivory Coast 8-7 on penalties in the final" Torqueing (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per ITN/R, good update, nice to see prose instead of just tables. Support Torqueing's blurb. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

blurl: In football, Zambia win the final of the 2012 Africa Cup of Nations played at Libreville, Gabon, against Ivory Coast by 8-7 on penalties after a tie 0-0, in a shcok result; and clisifiqued to the 2013 Confederations Cup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroang (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Support story, oppose proposed blurb. We have never posted scores on ITN and we should not be doing so now, shock result or not. "In a shock result" is not NPOV, either. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * proposed blurb: . Nergaal (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I'd love some more prose regarding the finals itself, the update is sufficient now, posting. And yes, we generally do not post results. --Tone 09:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ^We always post results (rather than the mere fact that the tournament has concluded). I think you meant that we don't generally include scores. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, scores ;-) --Tone 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Grammy Awards
Typical, you wait for one awards ceremony and two come along at once. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  20:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious support when ceremony has finished doktorb wordsdeeds 21:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN/R isn't enough if the nominated article is just a giant results table. This is just a results table. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support topic (but not that blurb). Maybe "Adele become the second female artist in win six Grammy Awards in a night at the 54th Grammy Awards". Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  04:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR, and I believe the article is ready. There's is a large enough text update in the lead section.  --Johnsemlak (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R, suggest blurb: "Adele wins Six Grammys including Record of the Year and Album of the Year at the 54th Grammy Awards". yorkshiresky (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I'd like to suggest that the blurb focusses on the fact that Adele has tied with Beyoncé for the most Grammys ever won in a single night. --109.155.78.55 (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but revise to Adele wins six Grammies at the 54th Grammy Awards, equalling the record held by Beyonce in a single night. Donnie Park (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The introduction needs some update, if we are to highlight the Grammys article. Should at least mention Adele winning six awards. Then, ready to post. (apparently I was looking at an old version) Regarding Beyonce, I'd support mentioning breaking the record, not a tie. --Tone 09:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blurb - In the interests of consistency, please can the blurb be amended to say "wins six awards". The posting about The Artist winning doesn't say "The Artist wins x BAFTAs." I think the former is correct. --109.155.78.55 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] BAFTA Awards

 * Obvious support when ceremony has finished
 * Ceremony has now finished, The Artist has been named Best Film. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not on BBC One it hasn't. Thanks for the spoiler! doktorb wordsdeeds 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance to have some more prose in the article? Currently, it's just the list, more or less. --Tone 21:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at expanding the lead some more. Does there need to be a separate prose section? - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  21:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's say that will do, posting. Highlighting the BAFTA's article, per standard practice. --Tone 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Confused at the speedy post. Not exactly breaking news. Article is ho-hum, all tables, no prose. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
It is a big news for a developed country (excluding France) to resume building nuclear plants. Nergaal (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * US approves the construction of the first nuclear plant in 30 years.
 * How so?--WaltCip (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support good update, good article over all, minority topic (engineering) and yes, it is significant. While Germany has a fukushima fear meltdown, the USA builds their first new reactor since three mile island. The most energy intensive country in the world has decided the risks of nuclear outweigh the costs of fossil. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this is only the approval, either wait for construction to start or plant to open. Approvals as we all know may not mean squat -- Ashish-g55 22:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Preliminary construction had already started when the ESP was approved. The COL approves the actual building of the reactor, again, the first time in 30 years one has been issued. I think we can post again in 2016 when the first reactor comes online. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Shabaab/Al Qaeda
Oppose I am not convinced by the importance of this story doktorb wordsdeeds 10:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Support if there's independent confirmation. If what I'm reading in the CNN article is correct, they're joining al-Qaeda. Which would mean that al-Qaeda now has de facto sovereignty over half a country. The undertones aside, they were probably cooperating before now so I doubt it's any real change, but notable enough for me.  Night  w   12:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone give me a link to the story please? Nanobear (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a few on the al-Shabaab article. The CNN article is .  Night  w   13:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Support per Night. Two major terrorist/islamist organisations joining forces, at least on the rhetorical level. The consequences of this are still unclear, of course, but as a current event I believe this is very notable. Nanobear (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose First of all, the update is titled "merger with al-Qaeda". I don't see anywhere that the "forces of Al Shabaab" have given up their existing power structure and are now totally under the control of al-Qaeda. That's gotta go before posting to main. Second, what is Al Shabaab? What is al-Qaeda? Are they cohesive, identifiable, uniformed groups of disciplined loyal individuals? No, they're not. Al Shabaab is made up of various tribes across Somalia. Who knows where their true loyalties lie. The true scope of this "co-operation" is also unknown, beyond "we pledge allegiance to you". And pledge their allegiance to who? Al-Qaeda could be 9 people in a Holiday Inn for all we know. To me it looks like propaganda from organizations notorious for false claims. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So I changed "Merger with Al-Qaeda" to "Alliance with Al-Qaeda" in the main article on the grounds that it's "separate orgs, same goals". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of this running on ITN, but the area Al-Shabaab controls amounts to a de-facto state. I therefore dispute Doktorbuk's argument entirely. With sufficient evidence of coverage, and more careful wording of the blurb, I would probably support. —WFC— 14:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support two of the biggest islamist organizations getting together is definitely ITN material.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should wait until after the FTC approves the merger. --  tariq abjotu  20:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only time will tell how significant is this development, but currently I do not see enough of an update to the article or other significant reasons to warrant an entry to the front page. --hydrox (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not normally appropriate to compare one story to another at ITNC, I know that. But as this is largely about Al Qaeda, I wonder whether we should instead focus on Al-Qaeda's call for Muslims to support Syrian rebels? Given the level of attention the UNSC Permanent Members and the Arab League are paying to Syria right now, that strikes me as being of considerably more global significance.  —WFC—  02:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * SHould be nom'd on its own merits. Though as a call alone i would hold off till it yields something. This was however officially done akin to treaties or biz deals (despite abjotu's sarcastic comment where is no OVERSIGHT authority on this vs. there actually being on in the biz sector)Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose one can never find sources independent of the subjects on the "notability" or even the "existence" of this relationship. I would hardly expect those to be forthcoming. Didn't make any major news splash in the US (the supposed target of this alliance) that I'm aware of. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Whitney Houston
Not exactly got the time to put this in the nice template and all right now so maybe someone else will do so. AP is reporting Whitney Houston has died. I think she's had enough musical success to meet criterion #2 of the death criteria. Timer's red and at 44 hours, so if this gets updated fast (which it will) and we get consensus early, it should go up asap. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Was just coming to nominate this myself. An influential singer, who has died way too young. Added the template, please feel free to tweak it as necessary. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but let some details come -- Ashish-g55 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yepp certainly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support on international fame, but there's a lot of questions of the scenario of her death; give it some time for them to be resolved. --M ASEM (t) 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Grudgingly support I generally oppose celebrity deaths, but it seems as likely as stopping the sun from rising in the east. She's famous enough, the the coverage is through the roof, so, yeah... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very influential singer. Truthsort (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose .  Snowolf How can I help? 01:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Datestamped "September 13". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh.  Snowolf How can I help? 01:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but not until more details emerge and the article is sufficiently updated (as others have said). Houston was a very important figure in her field, and her death was unexpected.  —David Levy 01:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Big news. To the IP 76...., not an "old age" death, so newsworthy for that reason too. To MASEM, yes, more details will arise, but we can post, so long as our article is careful to not include uncertain claims. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We do want to be careful since there's rumors (and strictly rumors) this was drug-related. Best to know the declared cause of death just to prevent drive-bys adding false info to her article. --M ASEM (t) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Internationally known singer, who is cited as having a massive impact on popular music. Obviously this has already gained world coverage. Plus her age - it is one of those shock deaths. Rain  the 1  02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thue | talk 02:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Should've waited for a more suitable update, but whatever.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pulled. The posting was premature.  As discussed above, more details must emerge before a sufficient article update can occur.  —David Levy 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to know the cause of death. We just need a substantial article update. —David Levy 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) That the article is wildly unstable is an argument against posting the item at this juncture. Again, the section's purpose is to direct readers to an encyclopedia article providing a substantial amount of information about the event, not to report breaking news and throw them into the fray. Posting the item now would disappoint visitors by sending them to an article providing little information about Houston's death. Would these individuals check back later (after the article has been substantially updated)? Perhaps not. Indeed, there's overwhelming consensus (including my support) that the item should be posted. We just need a decent article update, and we probably will have one soon. —David Levy 04:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: the second line of the article pretty much makes her an ITN-eligible death. Sceptre (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support/comment How was the posting premature? She died. What more can be said? That's the news. Post it. Wikifan Be nice  03:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a news outlet, and ITN is not a news ticker. Its primary purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles substantially updated to reflect recent/current events, not to report breaking news.  A substantial update to the Whitney Houston article (i.e. something more than "she died, and that's all we know") is not yet possible.  —David Levy 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not quite sure what DL is looking for here. Lampman (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's only two sentences added to the article about her death. Given this wasn't of old age, it would be best to affirm the cause of death and some of the initial reactions (which there are plenty) to the article before posting, like all ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 03:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be weeks before we get the coroner's report, but that's not a requirement. She's dead, we know that. Lampman (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right; that's not a requirement. We just need a substantial article update.  —David Levy 03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a substantial article update. The fact that one is not yet possible is a reason to wait, not to proceed on the basis that there's nothing more we can do at this juncture.  —David Levy 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support IVOTE!HotHat (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Ain't it shocking what drugs can do? --FormerIP (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Just post I don't see what needs to be updated this second unless you want to add the million or so rumors surrounding her death, which of course we can't. A final cause of death probably will take weeks. The only thing I could think of adding is the music industry reactions to her death, but that isn't a significant update for now at least. Secret account 03:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Without a substantial article update, we're simply reporting breaking news. That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia or ITN.  —David Levy 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support now without delay. I was surprised to see it not listed and don't agree with the rationale to pull it, David. The exact details won't be available for days. Her death has been widely reported.  Royal broil  03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the mistaken impression that ITN is a news ticker. This is a common misconception, so we always receive comments like yours when someone extremely famous dies and an item doesn't appear immediately.
 * It seemed like the article was being shunned with the only reason being that it was somewhat new news. At the time that I posted, it was widely reported by reliable sources. The article itself was in the right shape (overall) to be on the main page (B-class). My point was that ITN shouldn't necessarily avoid it just because some people are still reporting it as breaking news. We disagreed on how substantive of an update is needed.  Royal broil  13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Levy, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. For starters, it is basically impossible to make serious changes when the article is being subject to endless contributions, reverts, etc...forcing eternal edit conflicts. It took me close to 20 minutes just to update the death section, only for the section to be removed in another edit conflict. Section has three solid sentences, but like editors said we won't know more until the next few days or weeks. There is an overwhelming consensus to post. Wikifan Be nice  04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article is being heavily edited may be a good reason to wait on posting the ITN until that settles down. Right now, at least before posting this, one of the statements in the death section would be the type of thing that would fail BLP ("acting erratically" ) even though sourced and the like. There's reactions from people that were close friends of hers like Bobby Brown, for example, that can also be added.  If she died of old-age natural cause, then yes, there's not much to say about the death and a few lines would be sufficient.  Here, a death at 48 in a hotel room the day before the Grammy's, is sparkling a lot of rumor milling, and it is best we only post once RS's settle down as to the cause. --M ASEM  (t) 04:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its breaking news till we find out cause of death. So wait please. David was right to pull this -- Ashish-g55 04:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong cause of death is not required! All we need to report is that she died and where and when that's all because even by People Magazine they say cops found have seen her body.  By the way, a cause of death may take weeks to determine and substantiate, so we cannot go by that alone.HotHat (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont mean post after an autopsy but some details on what happened atleast. Or an update worth posting. People Magazine's job is to report breaking news, not ITN's -- Ashish-g55 04:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - if Wikipedia doesn't have information that is the current headline just about everywhere in the world, then Wikipedia becomes irrelevant and unreliable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment, our Whitney Houston article is an unreliable source of information about her death. That's why it's too soon to post an ITN item.  —David Levy 04:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the understatement of the year. A paragraph, 3 references from the LA Times and CNN. What else can be added at this point? – H T  D  04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why the Wikipedia article is unreliable source of information about her death is because there is no reliable source of information (yet). The fact of her death, though, is confirmed. The ITN item does not describe her cause of death, but rather the fact that she has died. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A substantial article update was needed. I'm sorry that people have difficulty understanding how the section works.  (The name doesn't help.)  —David Levy 05:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-posted. Following the most recent revisions, I'm satisfied that the update (which now includes actual details about Houston's death and comments from notable persons) is sufficient.  —David Levy 05:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest a picture be posted as well, similar to the posting of Amy Winehouse's death. Wikifan Be nice  05:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. —David Levy 05:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 European cold wave
At least 400 people have died in Europe and part of Asia including Russia. 57 in Romania, at least 122 in Ukraine, 64 in Russia...and the list continues. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  12:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This wave is said to be one of the heaviest in the last decades in terms of deaths, low temperatures and halts in the air transport. Places where snow flurries were deemed sporadic are hit with very heavy snow, causing extraordinary conditions and emergency situation in many countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Important, but needs some conversion of listy data into smooth text. Brand meister  t   14:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As creator of the article, I am going to support. Although I do agree the article needs tidying up, that should be done after the wave ends. Bruvtakesover (T&#124;C) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Very significant number of deaths from an unusual phenomenon. I'm in the UK right now and f-f-f-freezing! --109.155.78.55 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - too many deads too big zone, is a real news--Feroang (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support On the one hand I don't like the precident this sets or the way the information is formatted. On the other, it meets the significance and coverage levels of ITN, and has been sufficiently updated. —WFC— 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Temporary Oppose The topic is certainly ok, but the update is not. I'm Canadian, and for us -20c doesn't cause scores of deaths. The update is a list of factoids by country. What the article needs is some context comparing the current temperatures to average. A map would be great. Also, the minimum temp was -35, but for how long? Where? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Several times a year, the media get overexcited about the weather. Yes, it has been really bad in some places and the deaths are a tragedy. But they were a tragedy last year and they will be a tragedy next year. 400 people dying in Kettering would be ITN worthy. 400 across two continents, less so. --FormerIP (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * technical issues the article is only a lisyt not encyclopaedic prose. Further i think we could have a global 2011-2012 cold wave article.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article is not in a great state, but more than this, the nomination is for a story which is not important enough for the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Zoran Đinđić assassin

 * Support It took them almost 9 years to find the assassin. The case opened a very wide importance after it was necessary to solve via Interpol. I fixed the spelling of his name into Serbian latin alphabet as it is the case in both, the biographic article and the one about his assassination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Brand meister  t   18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with update, reluctant oppose for now. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principle; the event is notable but there isn't much press interest it seems. Unfortunately this is going to go stale due to the lack of an update. If anyone wants to spend half an hour on this it could go up. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not convinced at the time but now it's gone stale it seems worthless doktorb wordsdeeds 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hamza Kashgari

 * Support with a better blurb. —  C M B J   07:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blurb could now be: Saudi columnist risks death penalty for three tweets that allegedly insulted the prophet Mohammad. The info that he sought political asylum in New Zealand and was deported from Kuala Lumpur back to Saudi Arabia could be added, but would make the blurb longer. Pikir merdeka (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bit of curious trivia but not front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 19:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Baltasar Garzón banned

 * support notable and others (other judges who supported him and journalists) have calld it a throwback to the undemocratic era.Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Judge with that much importance of the trials during his career is an important person. The update in the article looks decent as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but actually the article update needs to include the lead. --FormerIP (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Is his banning from the legal profession linked to Pinochet or are they separate issues?  Spencer T♦ C 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like a seperate issue; apparently Garzon was bringing charges against persons associated with the Francisco Franco regime in Spain; said people had supposedly already been granted some sort of amnesty or immunity which Garzon's indictments violated. That's my reading anyways.  -- Jayron  32  04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mine too. Politically motivated, many judges came out in support of him.Lihaas (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not ready - There's nothing like a consensus here yet. I oppose this being added as it's insignificant and I also oppose nominations being marked as Ready when they're not. Cheap trick. --109.155.78.55 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "not ready" and "nothing like a consensus"? It looks fine, everybody except you is in favour and they give better reasons than "it's insignificant". --86.40.101.90 (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  19:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Pull FWIW the globe isn't exactly bursting with coverage on this one, the article has a fact tag on an important quote, and it's a bit thin. ("Many other judges came out to support")? Also the article is huge. At the very least link to the relevant section from the blurb. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Homs

 * Nominate. The 1982 Hama massacre repeats itself. --bender235 (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose individual blurb — but strongly support sticky. I think we're now at the stage where there are likely to be daily sitreps coming in from Homs, so instead of nominating the new story every day, a sticky might work better. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose full stop Highly charged and POV blurb does us no favours doktorb wordsdeeds 19:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please let us hear your best NPOV blurb of this. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose sticky The article is not being updated daily consistently enough (as in new sections worthy of ITN posting every day).  Spencer T♦ C 12:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prop 8 overturned

 * Oppose we cant not post every gay issue of every province, we must post something that do happend, like the day that argentinian congress aproov same-sex marriage, or another real change in a national marriage law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feroang (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose we can post it if it gets overturned in supreme court for entire country. we should not be posting changes in gay rights for single state for any country. -- Ashish-g55 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nominate again after SCOTUS ruling, please. --bender235 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Ash's rationale. The litmus test is whether we would do this for similarly prominent sub-national entities, such as England or Sao Paulo. —WFC— 03:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Opposers, please educate yourselves about the legal system of the United States before you spout your nonsense. This is not some "gay issue of a province". Some decisions establish precedents that are widely followed by others (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education), and given that there are a number of states in a similar situation as California on the same sex marriage issue, the effects of this ruling is huge. Furthermore, even if it is only limited to California, there is no reason to consider it less important than a change in a national marriage law for some arbitrary nation. We're talking about a state with 40 million people.  JimSukwutput  07:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (1)"Opposers, please educate yourselves about the legal system of the United States before you spout your nonsense." I would think it is for the nominator (and supporters) to demonstrate the notability of any event and not for the opposers to presume notability and provide reasons otherwise. If not, other editors will comment based on the bolded article and the nominator's comments (that this could potentially reach the Supreme Court on appeal - if and when the SC upholds the decision, I will support ITN inclusion, as of now its an Oppose.) (2)"Furthermore, even if it is only limited to California, there is no reason to consider it less important than a change in a national marriage law for some arbitrary nation. We're talking about a state with 40 million people. " I like where you are going with this, but I doubt most editors would agree that something that affects the entire population of Andhra Pradesh (Pop: 84.67 million, 5th largest in India) is more notable than something that affects the entire population of some arbitrary nation like Germany (Pop: 81.77 million, Largest in Europe excl. Russia). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to post this when the news broke but stopped myself because it really is a decision that, even if challenged, likely affects one state (the decision was based on a conflict with the CA state constitution, and thus likely the SCOTUS challenge will be limited to whether voters can restrict rights via propositions, rather than the legality of gay marriage). Important in the larger scheme for equality for gay marriage, but would fail the general criteria of ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also note that Brown v. Board of Education is hardly a relevant example to support inclusion, since Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court decision that established precedent for the US, while this is an intermediate appellate court decision that is subject to appeal and even if not only establishes a precedent for one circuit (I assume the 9th). Rlendog (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As above. This is a stepping stone issue, just involves one State, which is no where near notable enough for the front page prominence we're considering. If it ever gets to the Supreme Court we might have an argument. For now, there is none. Simply not important enough a development doktorb wordsdeeds 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is going to the SCOTUS without a doubt. We can take a look at it then. We wouldn't be establishing good precedence by covering the results of intermediate court cases.--WaltCip (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm glad this has been submitted for ITN because it deserves to be debated. In hundreds of years when equal rights will be commonplace, historians will look back to Prop 8 as one of the last stands by the right wing. I would love to give this my support but I have to use my head and say this particular decision by this particular court doesn't warrant an appearance in ITN. Sorry. --109.155.78.55 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of last surviving World War I veteran

 * I was going to nominate this myself today, but then I looked back in the archives and saw that we posted (in May) the last comabatant, Claude Choules. Florence Green was just a waitress. I don't really care all that much to oppose, though.  Night  w   18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. No strong opinion from me, either. If enough support is expressed, I can post. --Tone 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the word "participant" would perform better as "veteran" gives an impression that she fought. Brand meister  t   12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WTA advises against using "passes away" and recommends "died" instead. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Last veteran of a war, even if it's in a non-combat role, is one of the rare instances I absolutely believe a death should be placed on ITN. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support, no matter that she was in a non-combat role she was an active member of the armed forces in WW1 and was the last link to that event.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are we really sure? Over the past five years or so I've seen an awful lot of "last surviving veterans" reported on. (Not just here.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority of the previous veteran deaths that have been suggested here were for arbitrary statistics: last Canadian, last British male, last soldier, etc. As far as anyone can tell Green was the last verifiable WWI veteran. There's always going to be some people claiming to have served, but she was the last one in which it cannot be disputed. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. World War I was a very important event in world history, so the fact that the last surviving veteran has passed away is notable. The last surviving veteran of World War II passing away, once it happens, will also be notable. <font color="#CC0000">J <font color="#00CC00">I <font color="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notice how the BBC puts "World's last" in quotes. The opening line of the news report is "A woman thought to be the world's last known surviving service member of World War I has died aged 110." It's because the BBC isn't sure. Nor should we be sure. Massive verifiability fail here, as foreshadowed by HiLo above. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The last surviving veteran of any war is notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. But where's the source confirming it? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Groups that track veterans, like the Order of the First World War, have verified her as the last service member. Regardless of whether or not there are others, she was the last one alive with documents proving that she served during the war, and that should be good enough. An argument against this based on th fact that "we aren't sure" is, in my opinion, very poor. We are sure that she was the last verified veteran, and so she is the de facto final veteran to pass away. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC is a reliable source. They aren't willing to put their name to the claim that she is the last veteran.  Veterans' organisations, who you have neither named nor linked to, are not reliable sources.  We don't lower the bar on verifiability, especially not for the main page.  Posting this would be an appalling error of judgement. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually did name an organization if you would take another look, and I believe an international organization whose main goal is to follow veterans is about as reliable of a source as you can get. If you want to look them up, just Google them because I find linking on Wikipedia to be more trouble than it is worth. Like I said, there is no way to prove that she was the last veteran overall due to the large scale of the First World War and the time that has passed, but it has already been proven that she was the last veteran of which we had 100% undeniable proof of her service. Saying we should not post this because there is a slight chance she isn't the last veteran is the appalling error of judgement. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the BBC was as confident as you were, they would have called it. As it stands, I trust the BBC ahead of an anoymous internet poster (you).  WP:V commands that I do so.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph are prepared to remove all qualifiers and refer to her as the last veteran. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 22:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Very unlikely another will come along. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Mkativerata, would it be acceptable if we changed it to "last known surviving veteran"? That's what a lot of major sources, like the Washington Post, have been doing. --  Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a sensible suggestion, especially given the reliable sources that are doing the same thing. If we are to post this, the blurb should at least contain that qualification. And including that qualification would substantially eliminate my opposition. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the blurb per Scorpion's suggestion. I believe this to have consensus to post, but haven't marked as ready because – while I personally think it's sufficient – the level of updating is borderline. —WFC— 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain this to me? Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He's the last surviving veteran from the WWI-era. He fought in the Polish-Soviet War, but not in WWI.  Night  w   04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A curiosity.  JimSukwutput  07:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/Weak oppose - (funny above poster, how you tell people to not give poorly-reasoned opposition to the prop 8 story being in ITN/R, when you have just given a poor reason for opposing this) I think this story simply hasn't bee covered enough for inclusion in ITN/R. Yes, it's the end of an era - a closed gate, but there nothing terribly dramatic or wide-spread implications of this. --Nutthida (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think it hasn't been covered enough. A quick google search shows that it's received coverage all over the world, including by CNN, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, TIME, USA Today, The Toronto Star and more. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Important event and the remarkable age. Brand meister  t   11:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is past its due-by date now. She died on the 5th, which is before all of the current ITN items.  Night  w   12:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Glencore-Xstrata merger

 * notable for usre but lets wait till its done. I expect europe which is harder on antitrust regulationsmay oversight it. Remember Deutsche Bourse-NYSE and all the hype of an agreement?Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lihaas suggested the following blurb:


 * The mining company Xstrata and the commodity trading company Glencore agree to a "merger of equals," in a deal worth US$90bn.
 * Support It seems to be very important. Merger worth US$ 90 bn between two of the leading companies in their industries is a big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable at all. I saw this on the news once, but it seems insignificant really.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support we really don't post enough business stories. This is a good one. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can someone update Xstrata? In addition, I see the size of the money involved, but what is the industry impact of this merger?  Spencer T♦ C 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * comment bloomberg says $41billion..Lihaas (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It will probably be a major story if it goes through (and hopefully we can have Glencore Xtrata International ready to go for that event) but it's definitely worth waiting until the shareholders have approved it - as I understand it, there's strong resistance from some large investors, and it's far from a done deal even leaving aside the regulatory issues. Shimgray &#124; talk &#124; 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Maldives presidential resignation
Support: Major news in the South Asian region. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blurb is rather short and doesn't even tell us what country. It also needs updating to reflect new president. I suggest something along the lines of Mohammed Waheed Hassan is sworn in as the President of Maldives following the resignation of Mohamed Nasheed due to weeks of protests led by local police dissidents. Matthewedwards : Chat  15:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've updated all necessary articles, including refs. Some still showed Nasheed as President!. I added myself as "updater", hope that's ok. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put my blurb in, because the original was written in the wrong tense, and didn't have enough info like what country. I updated the following articles Mohammed Waheed Hassan, President of Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, Politics of the Maldives and Maldives. Matthewedwards : Chat  16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Resignation of a head of state is a standard ITN material.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pull. There's hardly any content in the 2012 presidential election section to speak of. It needs a far more substantial update before it can end up on the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Modify blurb: The former president said that he was forced to resign at gunpoint, making this a coup rather than a resignation(this claim has been supported by the foreign minister). Indian military intervention (similar to Operation Cactus) was sought by Nasheed, but the Manmohan Singh government just sat on the fence (surprise, surprise). I guess the article will have to be updated and the blurb modified: as of now, it is wrong news (or at the very least incomplete news) that we have posted.  Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment suggest pull/modify per Chocolate Horlicks EdwardLane (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't need to pull the whole thing, just redact the resignation part until the article is updated.  Night  w   12:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree to an amendment to the blurb. Also Nasheeds article si more updated so tha should be in bold. And add the counter protests and arres warrant for Nasheed. Shits going on there.Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, shit is definitely going on there, but looks like no shit is going on here at ITN/C. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Negros Oriental earthquake
- At least 43 deaths after a 6.8 magnitude earthquake in Philippines. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  18:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article needs expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 00:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone check if it's long enough? – H T  D  05:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to post. Suggest the blurb, please (generic or something else?). --Tone 10:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we're running red and the article is in a good shape, posting. --Tone 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Contador stripped of 2010 Tour; banned

 * Support. International news story, definitely notable. Not sure if there's a better article/section to link to? Perhaps Alberto Contador? Mention could also be made of the authority stripping him of the titles (Court of Arbitration for Sport, I presume?).  I ♦  A  15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - as we regularly mark the TdF winners in ITN, we should also post this. Crnorizec (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support outside of Armstrong, this fella is most prominent cyclist in modern Tour de France history. Another nail in the coffin of modern cycling races but important on a global scale, especially after Landis.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The Tour de France is an ITN/R item, and this is effectively a new result for the 2010 race. No doubts really. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. One of the most acclaimed cyclists in the previous years tested positive with nullifying his results in 2010 and 2011 and a suspension of 2 years is a massive blow for sports in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, the blurb is rather lengthy, shall we really mention Schleck and Scarponi? Otherwise, ready to post. --Tone 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least Schleck should be, because the Tour is ITNR. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll post the complete blurb for the time being. If it turns out to be too long, we can still modify it. --Tone 17:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Romanian revolution
Support - I nominated this article in January after the Bucharest violences. Now we have the result. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  11:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Revolution? Whatever. Support once the multiple tags on the article are taken care of. --FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed title to protests as that's what the article's title says. Support in principle, resignation of head of government is standard ITN material. Both articles (protests and Boc's) require some work, though. --Tone 11:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. He seems to resign immediately. --bender235 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support major news that brings further instability in the region. Crnorizec (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Important news for Romania and it's people. It reminds me of the poll tax riots in the UK except without the resignation. A PM resigning due to policy unpopularity is certainly noteworthy. --109.155.78.55 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Article needs significant changes. I can't believe we still have crap like this on Wikipedia: "In '89 they have put their hopes in a better, free, developed Romania to come for them in the near future. Instead, the reality failed to come, year by year being led into a feeling of deep, passive dissatisfaction, a frustration never so largely expressed in the public. On the background of the world economical recession still in progress at that time, of unsecured European economical politics (not existing yet an European Fiscal Union), and by imitating the crisis situations in Europe, on January 13th came the right moment to express their complaints to the government and to the world, by starting the protests, taking advantage of the goodwill event of sustaing SMURD and Raed Arafat of the previous day, by quickly turning their opinion against the Romanian system." That has to be the silliest original research I've yet seen. (Also, trade-union organized vandalism and riots against austerity measures is not a "revolution". Whoever brought up that term should have his editing privileges revoked immediately.)  JimSukwutput  22:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of criticising you can change it!
 * Furthermore, there isnt a revolution 5 mins after a president resigns ( a la egypt) and the causes dont dtermine a revolution either. That's OR and whover "said that should have their editing priviliges rekoved immeidately"
 * Furthermore, this is not an article title or a blurb but a subsection of the nom. please focus!Lihaas (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment So, if we are to feature the new PM's article, the update needs to be a bit longer and referenced. The protests article probably won't be brought to a decent shape in due time. --Tone 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Big news in light of the world--Metallurgist (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II

 * Oppose. This is already posted in On This Day. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a very notable event worthy of being posted in ITN. Considering there will be Diamond Jubilee celebrations throughout the world, I think it should be included. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, suggest posting as ITN and removing the piece in OTD, I suspect that the appearance of Her Maj. in OTD is a regular occurrence regarding her accession but the diamond jubilee is far more notable. Points of notability include head of the commonwealth, only the 2nd British monarch to have a diamond jubilee and only the 3rd for any monarch in the last 60 years (fact 60). Also suggest changing the blurb to "Elizabeth II, the second longest reigning British monarch and head of the commonwealth, celebrates her Diamond Jubilee.. --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also suggest removing the Fred Goodwin story or at least removing direct reference to the Queen as it might be a bit unfair for her to have 2 mentions in ITN at the same time. --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  02:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, well if the story can be pulled from OTD, then that would take care of my oppose. HOWEVER...I'm not sure it is her diamond jubilee. Isn't that later in the year on the anniversary of her coronation? --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed her Diamond Jubilee. --Nutthida (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really not sure about that. See this: . I think it's either in June or "jubilee" refers to the year rather than a specific day. --FormerIP (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just like her birthday, the exact date is a total mystery to some! I'm really not sure about it either now. Is this just ascension day? The Jubilee is just for her coronation day. She wasn't crowned the day her father died xD (Woah, imagine how insensitive that would be) --Nutthida (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A jubilee occurs on the anniversary of the monarchs accession to the throne at least in the British Isles. The celebrations however are in June due to the accession also being when the death of the previous monarch occurred. --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  02:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See for information on when the jubilee actually is. --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian  <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  03:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't clear things up, Wint. It says "Accession Day is on 6th February". --FormerIP (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This sentence "The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee marks 60 years since her accession in 1952." in my interpretation states that accession day is the actual date of the jubilee, unless I am reading it wrong. --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's possible, since I'm getting the impression that the jubilee is 2012, rather than any specific day. In either case, the phrase in the blurb "celebrates her Diamond Jubilee" seems wrong on the basis that she intends to celebrate it in June, according to the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point "celebrates her Diamond Jubilee" is compleatly the wrong phrase to use suggest we use ""marks her Diamond Jubilee" instead? --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  03:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't generally do anniversaries here: we didn't even post the tenth anniversary of 9/11. If this really a more significant milestone that that? What can there be in terms of a real update anyway? Crispmuncher (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * This isn't just an "Anniversary" it's Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee (or, maybe it isn't, this is confusing). And comparing it to the anniversary of 9/11 is totally irrelevant to this entry. We do not play tit-for-tat here. Please treat them as individual events /: --Nutthida (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't tit for tat - I opposed that too. It's just that the simple passage of time since an event is not itself an event.  Events marking the anniversary possibly count, if they are notable in their own right as opposed to inheriting their significance from the event the mark.  In this case there haven't even been any notable events - the Queen's diary is a fairly normal day at a school if I remember the news reports from earlier correctly.  Events marking the anniversary are being held back to the annivserary of the coronation. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Why "even" in "we didn't even post the tenth anniversary of 9/11"? 9/11 isn't the most notable event in the history of the world, and you can't automatically assume it's more notable than Queen Elizabeth II. It's like comparing apples and oranges. And besides, Diamond Jubilees for people, particularly heads of state, are a well-established concept, while anniversaries of disasters are just arbitrary occurrences with no established history. <font colour="#CC0000">J <font colour="#00CC00">I <font colour="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC
 * I cite 9/11 as something clearly more prevalent in the public consciousness than this (yes, even here in the UK) whose anniversary we didn't mark, not as some gold standard of notability. I also refer you to my point above - passage of time since an event is not an event in itself. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC).)
 * You Brits must be well aware of 9/11, but I'm sure you're more aware of your own Queen. I would understand it if you claimed 9/11 itself was more important than the Queen's Diamond Jubilee (heck, I would feel the same way also), but, as you say, passage of time since an event is not an event in itself, I still fail to understand how an anniversary of 9/11 would be more notable than the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. <font colour="#CC0000">J <font colour="#00CC00">I <font colour="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose per formerIP[ and this doesnt have the global/commonwealth worth of Her Majesty the Empress of IndiaLihaas (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Highly notable. Reaches the milestone of Queen Victoria, a record breaker if ever there was one. Head of State of numerous territories around the world. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Broad international notability, and can be removed from OTD. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Titoxd. There will be ceremonies and celebrations all around the world for this event, as well as several royal tours this year commemorating it. Highly notable. --<font colour="#FF0000">Plasma <font colour="#FF4500">Twa <font colour="#FF0000">2 05:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favour of jubilee of coronation in June: that is the main focus date of most events and celebrations. Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Withdraw my own: although the main celebration is in the summer, it is not on an intrinsically relevant date.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the accession is the most important bit, the coronation is just the ceremony to confirm the monarch as head of state via taking of the oath etc. and is not likely to be celebrated in any big way in the commonwealth, indeed it was not celebrated in the British Isle in 2003. --<font size="2" colour="SteelBlue" face="Segoe Script">wintonian <font colour="LightSteelBlue">talk  10:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question There is overwhelming consensus to post and the article is marked as "Ready". Why, after three days, has this still not been posted? 87.115.38.213 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - the 60th anniversary of the Coronation (June 2013) is not something that is guaranteed to happen, however fit HM is at the moment. This is a significant milestone and ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly notable and in the news around the world. ITN-worthy indeed. Jus <font colour="C1118C">da <font colour="#0000FF">fax   07:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support - This is a milestone that only a handful of Heads-of-States have ever reached. She's the HoS of 16(?) countries and the second-longest reigning monarch. And the article looks great. This so obviously should be posted in ITN. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that The Guardian is being used as the source for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.117.119 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support conditionally — only if we remove reference to her Diamond Jubilee to stop the petty arguments already seen on this page that are bound to come up at WP:ERRORS if we posted in present form. The news story itself is clearly significant — so why can't we just say "Elizabeth II, the second longest reigning British monarch, marks her 60th year on the throne"? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If I understand correctly, today is the anniversary and the celebration is planned for June. If that is so, then I am inclined to post the story in June, as ITN typically reports events, not anniversaries (what OTD is for). --Tone 11:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support one of the most notable and longest serving world leaders. Crnorizec (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Not meany people manage 60 years in one job, and given the scale of the job this is fairly significant, wont happen again in my life time, nor do I suspect in the life time of the majority of our readers. Mt  king (edits) 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support doubtful that this landmark will be matched in any of our lifetimes (apart from our young teenage editors perhaps). Globally and historically significant. Of course, don't overlap/repeat OTD, but maybe the celebration starts here at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. As I stated above, perhaps more important than the 10th anniversary of 9/11, seeing as Diamond Jubilees of head of state are an established concept. Still, not nearly as important as the Finnish presidential election. Prince Charles succeeding Queen Elizabeth II will be much more notable, once it happens. <font colour="#CC0000">J <font colour="#00CC00">I <font colour="#0000CC">P &#124; Talk 21:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this perpetual "anniversary of 9/11" is borderline tedious. This has nothing to do with that at all.  Some editors need an historical and global perspective, really.  We have a monarch who, rightly or wrongly, is the head of state of a vast portion of the globe, and has hit 60 years, which is unprecedented in a modern era. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: With regards to people debating whether this should be featured now, or on the anniversary of the coronation, it appears that the Commonwealth's news organisations are marking the occasion now. For example: in the Sydney Morning Herald, Toronto Star and BBC. Furthermore, the "Official Website of the British Monarchy" has the frontpage headline (and fulltext) of "The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Message". Whilst there will definitely be celebrations and events throughout the year, the 6th of February is clearly when the world is marking the official occasion and so I believe we should too. Wittylama 04:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Suits OTD better, and could be a slippery slope to more systemic bias. Granted, this may be the first time ever that there's no British articles on ITN at a given time, so won't oppose it. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty obviously big news throughout the Commonwealth, not just in Britain. Resolute 17:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support This shouldnt be news, but it is and there will be a whole fuss later this year, but it was in the news now.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My feelings sort of echo metallurgist above but it definitely should not be on both OTD and ITN. FWIW I see this as far less significant than a similar anniversery of a long-serving head of state of real power, examples from the 20th century include Josip Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-sung.  Ok those guys didn't serve for 60 years but they had real power.  Also, I believe we rejected the the significant anniversary (60th? can't remember) of the founding of the PRC.--84.21.91.147 (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OTD is now irrelevant as it is February 8. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe no admin agrees that it's ITN material. --Golbez (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if that is the case, they should state their reasoning, rather than simply ignoring this consensus to post. Another theory, of course, is that no-one is looking at this page any more. There have been fewer than 15 edits on this page in the past 24 hours (this brief exchange notwithstanding). 87.115.38.213 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian scientists pierce into Antarctica's Lake Vostok



 * Support This is a huge development. The lake was the last major geographic discovery on Earth, they drilled the longest ever ice core, and the samples of water to be taken when frozen at the end of 2012 may bring discoveries in microbiology and paleolife. Grey  Hood   Talk  19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per above. Very interesting for the reader and noteworthy due to the ice core being the longest ever and reaching the lake beneath. Get it up there. --109.155.78.55 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but with better blurb. Breaching Lake Vostok is an important event.  However, the 20 years of drilling part is basically wrong / misleading.  The first ice core drilled at Vostok was in 1970 (forty years ago), and there have been drill operations at the site most of the years since then.  In 1990, they began the fifth long core at Vostok (dubbed 5G), which stopped being drilled in 1997 after achieving the record depth of 3623 m (which has been the world's longest ice core, until the decision to extend it).  After an eight year break (the longest gap in drill operations at Vostok since drilling began) they decided to extend core 5G (now named 5G-1) to reach the lake, and that operation started in 2005.  Personally, I'd just leave off the 20 years part, since they have either been drilling at the site 42 years, or on this extension for 8 years, but focusing on the 22 year history of hole 5G (including the 8 year hiatus) seems strange.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Is "after many years of drilling" good enough? If not, better drop this part indeed. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably we know how many "many years" is so we should be specific... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, dropped it. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support although I would prefer a change of emphasis. My thoughts on reading the blurb are "who cares about the ice core?", particularly "do we really need to wedge in the exact length of the core?" and "do we really need to name Vostock station when we give the location (Lake Vostock) elsewhere?"
 * There's only limited space in the blurb and it isn't a question of what can be wedged in, but what can be taken out and still put the story into context. For me there are two main points here: a) Lake Vostock has been reached and b) Lake Vostock has been isolated for however many million years.  The reader can click through for anything else. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Added the word "isolated" to the blurb. The fact that it has been isolated for many million years would be more important if they find some life there, but that will be no earlier than the end of the year if ever. We'll have a chance to report it then. The ice core record is very important since it could extend the knowledge of paleoclimates etc. As for mentioning the Vostok Station, it just identifies the team and the location. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Marked as ready. Nanobear (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. I suggest changing the photo tomorrow so that the new President of Finland will be on for 24 hours. --Tone 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[re-posted] Super Bowl XLVI
Isn't it surprising that the British paper the Guardian has one of those live feed pages for, in Doctorbuk's words, a sport "supported only by a minority of sports fans across the world, is US-centric as a subject, is US-centric in terms of article content, does not promote Wiki's world view, and is a non-notable event in the context of sporting headlines"? Is there any other non-British (or even European) sport they do this for? If anyone else opposes it will be as laughable as that dancing red M&M's. – H T  D  00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of warped agenda are you promoting here? Nobody has opposed posting this when it becomes appropriate to do so: it is ITN/R, so no such objection would have any grounds anyway. One can only assume that your comment serves no purpose other than to be argumentative and to draw attention to an opinion that received no support a year ago.  Most people would have got over one person's wind up by now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.77.50 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * HTD I would suggest DNFTT and DNGAF. And who the hell is Doctorbuk??? --Nutthida (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This guy. And don't tell me I didn't warn you about the nonsensical opposes. Good luck. – H T  D  02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This guy. And don't tell me I didn't warn you about the nonsensical opposes. Good luck. – H T  D  02:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I am against US-centric stuff, but this is the second-most-watched regular event in the world after the Olympics. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We did not post the final of the indian cricket tournament, and indians are crazy about it, also I dont know both sport event.--Feroang (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's completely unreasonable to base your opposition on that. These are separate nominations and separate issues and should be treated individually. As far as I can see, the Super Bowl is a far larger event that commands a much wider global interest than a lot of people outside - and even inside - the US seem to think. --Nutthida (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Was the Indian cricket tournament watched by over 30% of the country's population? Last year's Super Bowl was watched by over 100 million Americans during one single game. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering Indians population...^_^ --Nutthida (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Once ITN/R is asserted you are implicitly asking us to consider the update: well, it's not ready. Try re-filing (under the correct date) once the result is known and the article has a substantive update. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * not ready because it finished literally seconds ago. And boy those Patriots-idiots stupid leaving him open tp SIT for the TD. But if they made the catch itd have been the greatest ever in in sports history!. (silly all-yankee game as it was...one of the worst combos to see at the superbowl. Anyways, Superbowl L = Cowboys vs. Texans, i said it here first)
 * Edit conflict my update ;(Lihaas (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Yeah that missed catch was pretty epic - I appreciate close games in any sport, steam-rollers are boring, I would veto a steam-roller game for IT/N fufufufuf) I'm going to so wait rather than oppose because of updates, which are expected, to come in. --Nutthida (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * could haev been a hair-trigger from a flag too ;)Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for my reasons quoted by the nominator. The sudden upsurge in British interest in this event is a curiosity, not proof of a trend. The sport does not feature on the broadcast media news, for one thing, and there has been no build up on the broadcast media, only on-line where there is no guarantee that the domestic audience really cares. Clearly this is not something for which Wikipedia's world wide audience would find notable, interesting or worthy of front page inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)
 * So five straight hours of coverage on BBC One doesn't count as featuring on the broadcast media? Anyway, the Super Bowl is already on WP:ITNR. It's assumed to be notable automatically. The article just needs a sufficient update to qualify for ITN; it doesn't need to re-establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To add, all of the trending topics on Twitter in the UK is Super Bowl-related. – H T  D  03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Temporarily removed There is no game summary from what I can see. Once one is added, I will repost it.  Spencer T♦ C 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WAIT There's more OPPOSE than SUPPORT, you can't repost it doktorb wordsdeeds 03:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really concern me- I think we've posted Super Bowl results for the past 6 years (estimate?) and it's also on ITN/R.  Spencer T♦ C 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Good pull by Spencer, there wasn't even close to an update. That said, this is ITNR and there's no point opposing&mdash;it will be posted as soon as there's an update (and rightly so). Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment And the charade of being on ITNR has been proven with the oppose votes here today! There is little support for this nomination to be anywhere near the front page. And rightly so. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that several of the oppose votes deal with the fact that the article isn't updated, not that it isn't notable. Article update takes precedence over any other rationale.  Spencer T♦ C 03:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. I can't believe we're entertaining such a small event but who am I to argue with the logic of American sports fans? doktorb wordsdeeds 03:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "such a small event"...wait, are you kidding? With a projected 117 million viewers, that's rather large for a single sporting event.  Spencer T♦ C 03:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Should it be noted in the blurb that Eli Manning was the Super Bowl MVP, according to In_the_news/Recurring_items? --   Luke      (Talk)   03:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, plus then we can add a picture of Manning. Jenks24 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that we updated the TFL picture to cover the new MVP. —WFC— 03:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Post after update. Update doesn't need to be huge, just include the winner in the lead. I'm sure it has already been done by editors. And seriously, we post far less relevant sports games, like handball. Wikifan Be nice  03:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Currently there is a text update at Super_Bowl_XLVI, but it needs references. Once it has these, I will post.  Spencer T♦ C 03:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the note ate ITNR says usually doesnt say its ITNR to add it. I digressl, leave that for the article. Also couldbe interesting to note as in the post-game interview, that Eli did it at the stadium that Peyton "built".Lihaas (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support One of the biggest sporting and musical performance events of the year. —<font face="IrishJig"> Andrew s talk  05:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is this not posted? Game ended almost three hours ago and it is still not on the front page. Truthsort (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's still an orange-level tag (original research) in the Game summary section, which is particularly crucial to the update. --  tariq abjotu  05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Anyone opposing the inclusion of the single-most watched sporting event in the world (excepting the multi-day Olympics) makes completly transparent their anti-American bias.98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Super Bowl is not the most-watched sporting event in the world, but that's irrelevant. The issue is the update, or rather the original research tag in the Game summary section. We don't post articles with orange-level tags. --  tariq abjotu  06:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Let the haters hate. It's big all over the world. Jus  da  fax   07:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Stop the stuffing around. It's ITN/R. The article looks OK now. Post the darn thing so the silly, aggressive posts stop. Many of them are just embarrassing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment @Tariq, I agree the orange tag looked pretty bad. So I removed it, along with the OR. Now post this. Wikifan Be nice  08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a still an orange-level outdated tag in the "Commercials" section... — howcheng  {chat} 09:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. Wikifan Be nice  09:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Notice to Admins An editor has reverted all the blog-style, POV, OR, rambling shambles of a play-by-play commentary to the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me now. Posting. --Tone 10:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Finnish presidential election

 * Support - As per ITN convention. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. per above Thelb4(talk) 19:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Overall the article looks really good, but could Finnish_presidential_election,_2012 be expanded a little more?  Spencer T♦ C 20:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Also per ITN conventions. Article is pretty good. I'd support even without further expansion, but I'd like to see a bit more about the issues and the party that is in power after decades on the outside. Jus  da  fax   21:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * its a stellar article compared to most (all?) elections from non-english speaking/commonwealth countries. Also marked eady.Lihaas (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  05:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Veto on Syria Resolution

 * Comment. I say we should concentrate on getting the item directly below posted. This might be able to be merged with that somehow. ... *eyeing nominator suspiciously*  Night  w   21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, this should somehow be combined with the blurb below. Something not happening (i.e. no resolution) is usually not ITN. --bender235 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Homs

 * Support, if we can confirm the veracity of the story. —  C M B J   10:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * About the veracity, here are a few links: over 200 kills according to Reuters, France24 , BBC and CNN , 260 kills according to Al-jazeera , 337 kills according to Al-Arabiya  --aad_Dira (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Also, here is a link from Russia today states that: "Reports say at least 200 perished in the attack on the Syrian city of Homs, which started late on Friday" --aad_Dira (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
 * And here, Sky news rises the kills number to as high as 350 --aad_Dira (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
 * ABC news and Fox news reports here 200 deaths as well and here  --aad_Dira (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Der Spiegel reports 400 death, 1000 injured --bender235 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is there, the update is extensive, however, on the top of the article, there are some tags that would need to be addressed. Support then. --Tone 12:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Notable development.  Lynch 7  15:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support very notable.Goltak (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is very long, there are a lot of doubtful and uncheckable statements that have lasted for month. The neutrality over the forces in the city and diverses thing is also contested. However, like Goltak, I suggest to use the new article specially made for yesterday claims.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Syrian government denies it, and the reports (at least initial ones), were based on some bloggers claims. The blurb is not neutral.  Grey  Hood   Talk  17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Try phrasing a "neutral" blurb for this. --bender235 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Easily. Drop the word "regime", remove the word "heavy", remove the unneeded mention of the anniversary, remove unconfirmed claims. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree it was a bit excessive. Had a go, but left the numbers as they seem to indicate the notability.  Night  w   21:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How in the world is "regime" a non-neutral word? Are you kidding me? --bender235 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's got pretty negative connotations to most ears—see Loaded language.  Night  w   21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. --bender235 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Greyhood. The blurb exclusively attributes the deaths to the government, rather than to the armed rebel groups. Some attempt must be made to reconcile the two viewpoints; otherwise the blurb promotes the Syrian National Council. Shrigley (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though this pseudo-NPOV "he said, she said" charade is ridiculous, for god's sake, then just mention that there have been hundreds of deaths, w/out attributing them to anyone. --bender235 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's have some suggested or even BOLD amendments, rather than just opposing on the nature of the blurb.  Night  w   21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "Syrian forces clash with rebels in the city of Homs, as opposition media claim 200 dead and 500 injured." Shrigley (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Would like to see mention of the deaths via bombardment as well as the UN veto. Time constraints today preclude my work on the blurb, but this story should be represented on ITN, in my view. Jus  da  fax   21:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, alternative blurb, since (for some reason) we did not post the Arab League monitors withdrawal:
 * Less than a week after the Arab League suspended its monitoring mission in Syria, the ongoing civil unrest intensifies, as reportedly 400 people were killed in clashes between regime forces and rebels in the city of Homs. --bender235 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Tweaked the blurb to remove attribution. Marking as ready.  Night  w   23:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/Support Rewrote blurb to reflect sources, feel free to revert. Wikifan Be nice  00:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, alot of discussion have taken place here. First, what is unneutral is to say that the deaths were in clashes between the two sides, because neither the regime nor the opposition have said that such a thing happened, i think that we are assuming neutrality rather than trying to be really neutral. If you want the actual two sides views, the opposition says that 400 people were killed by a heavy shelling launched by the Syrian army, and the regime says that 400 people (Actually he didn't mention a number, but whatever) were killed in an armed bands operations in Homs, that is all. Second, from my view, there is difference between the blurb itself being unneutral (For example, saying revolution not protests, or martyrs not deaths) and the case it is showing just a one-side view, because the blurb can be neutral in showing the opposition view even if it didn't mention the other side view, in addition to the fact that the sentence is too short to mention two views (At the time of 2011 Damascus bombings, the view of the opposition for the hand of the regime in what happened were not mentioned in the main page news section). So, i think the current blurb is good, and mentioning the number of deaths is very important (note that 200 is the least number mentioned by all agencies, even the russian), and the clashes sentence is far away from true --aad_Dira (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * tweaked blurb trying to merge 2 items, if its too long we can remove the monitors birt. also made npov with the CLAIM of 200+ deathsLihaas (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not ready one of the bolded articles still has a serious issues template (neutrality) on it. Remember ITN is for highlighting quality content. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * NO thats what DYK is for, itn is for highlighting whats IN THE NEWS. Minor articles have often times been posted.Lihaas (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the problem of the article is solved now, because a new article has been created for the massacre, and we can link the blurb to it directly. Personally, i don't see a big need for mentioning what is related to the monitors. Also, what is the point of "civil unrest" part? The sentence in general sounds like a 200 people have died surprisingly in an obscure conditions, why don't we say simply that an artillery shelling on the city of Homs by the Syrian forces caused 200 deaths and stop circling around it? It is simple, all news agencies tells you in the bold font: "The Syrian regime has killed 200 people in Homs". Remember WP:UNDUE, if the media didn't give much attention to the regime story of the armed bands, we don't have to mention it, because it is not notable, what is notable rather is the 200 deaths caused by the REGIME story, it is neutral and notable and we can say it simply --aad_Dira (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Agree that civil unrest has no place in the blurb, neither does "international media." It just sounds awkward. Wikifan Be nice  06:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * becuase that is POBV. its a CLAIM by the opposition (no bias there?) and the international media who cant verify it because there is a media blackout and they rely on claims. And we dont credence to waht the media gives attention to or not because this is NOTNEWS. Its clear from the statements above that this is POV. Futhermore, the govt denies it happened (or at least via shellingLihaas (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC) )
 * What is the relation between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE? The news agencies is simply the primary source of news articles on Wikipedia, so it does not require alot of thinking to conclude that what is notable and unnotable depends on it. You guys sounds like trying to make the things neutral but you don't know how to do that, so you just try to change things that don't need to be changed. Yes, the regime has shelled Homs and killed 200 people, there is nothing unneutral here, this is the opposition story and this is what was the top news in the international newspapers of 4th February. If you want to tell the regime story, so shall it be, but don't change the main story told by all worldwide media and invent Wikipedia very own story of what happened in Syria yesterday --aad_Dira (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Your statements are showing more of a bias each time. FIRST you say that WP should not "invent" stories, whoich is true, but the invention is being made on behalf of 1 side and unverified (not to mention dubious). WP is not a weblog/social media (by intention anyways). if as you say its the primary source here then thats explicitly frowned upon as biased. (can bt cited but needs to be backed elsewhere). notability does NOT depend whatsoever on what the news agencies report. there is a lot of garbage, even if RS, that is not notable enough to be on here. Perhaps Wikinews is better using the logic behind the arguement here. Thereis no affirmation of shelling other than the opposition claim (to bolder their view/garner support of oppression) and the media that have repeatedly said reports cannot be confirmed as they are not present. to present it we need BOTH stories, not seperate stories.Lihaas (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i am biased to the revolution, i support the revolution, there is no reason for me to hide this fact, also you are biased against the revolution, it is clear that you are Shia Muslim, but all of these facts does not prevent any of us from the right of discussing things out here. When we publish the opposition view of events on Wikipedia we does not invent things, but we simply tells what the opposition said, but when we invent a new thing that neither the regime nor the opposition said like that the current blurb is a different thing. And, from what you said, can i understand that Reuters, BBC, France24, CNN, Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Russia today, The Guardian, Sky-news and Fox-news top page news of the day was all unnotable? Are you kidding or what? As i said before, mention the regime view if you want, i don't care, but don't try to change the fact the Syrian army has shelled Homs and killed 200 people, this MUST be mentioned in the blurb. I don't know why you just wanna make the discussion longer and longer --aad_Dira (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * thats fine but youve completely discredited yourself with an admission of bias. Furthermore, if it is "clear" that i am a Shia can you prove it? Dont resort to personal attacks but comment on content. Wehtehr im a Shia a or notis irrelevant, and thats a presumption to say so!Lihaas (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with more neutral blurb I agree with all the comments here - this is a viable nomination but the blurb must be less bias doktorb wordsdeeds 09:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, here is a new proposal (Although, i don't see why it is biased; Civil unrest, Alleged, according to the international media. Please clarify your point):
 * An artillery shelling according to the Syrian opposition and armed bands attacks according to the regime causes 200 deaths and and 500 injured in the city of Homs.
 * So, is anyone planning to tell me why is it biased or should i just post it as ready? --aad_Dira (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
 * As Greyhood already said, "regime" is a negative word for "government", so it should be avoided. And if the article describes only the alleged shelling, and not the rebels' attacks, as the wikilinks suggest, then it is not neutral. If it covers both, then wikilink like this: cause 200 deaths . "Bands" is not really idiomatic; it sounds like it could almost be "bandits", and could be any side. "Rebel attacks" would be clearer. Also, qualify the numbers with something like "reportedly". Shrigley (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While we're on it, "artillery shelling" is such a negative word, let's name it "shower of confetti". Wouldn't that be something? Point is, sometimes you call a spade a spade. --bender235 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're intentionally missing the point, bender235. Why do I keep getting the feeling that you're somehow trying to push a political agenda every time you comment on an ITN item?  JimSukwutput  00:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i agree with bender actually, i see that as i said before, you guys want to be neutral, but you don't know how, so you are just trying to change everything around on the hope of representing the regime point of view, although many thing don't need to be changed. Anyway, Shrigley please write a suitable blurb yourself, because it seems that it is hard for me, as a supporter of the revolution, to realize your criteria of neutrality here, and please do that as soon as possible because two days have passed already after the event --aad_Dira (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * in reply to bender, as opposed to the now irrelevant user who blatantly said hes biased AND showed it, the issue is not about the artielley oshelling or not its about the fact that its UNVERIFIABLE going SOLELY on the credence of 1-side to the conflict .Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So? What is the result do you need to reach to? We remove the whole sentence and write that an armed terrorist bands have attacked Homs and killed 200 people although some liar people calling themselves opposition claims that it was done by the army? --aad_Dira (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Lihaas, look at the pictures from Homs. The city essentially looks like Misrata a couple of months ago. Do you really believe the Syrian people (or "rebels", as they are refered to here; I wonder why we haven't adopted "terrorists" yet) are staging this? How would they be able to? This pseudo-"he said, she said"-journalism thingy you guys are trying is pointless. It kinda reminds of the early days of the Iraq War, when Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf constantly assured the media that there were no Allied forces in Iraq, saying that in front of TV camera with American tanks tracking in on him in the background. Essentially that's what Assad is saying: "there is no uprising!" "then why's the Army all over the country, killing people?" "all foreign terrorists!" And now we are supposed to add this to Wikipedia, just because of NPOV? Guys, at some point, you have to use your own eyes. --bender235 (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  05:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * pull it ASAP the blurb is hidepusly pov and unverified with the due caveat. At any rate, the timer is not overdue with the finland posting.Lihaas (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hideously POV? There was a military operation. During that time, 200 people were killed. This seems rather undisputed, at least as the article puts it. Of course, now that you put up that disputed tag, it's hard to judge what's undisputed. But, this pushing off Syria until the next event pattern is starting to get a bit annoying. There have been so many events related to Syria over the past month that are of great enough significance to be on ITN. Each time, something derails it. Let's not ruin this again. --  tariq abjotu  06:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The linked article has some questionable grammar/sentence structure and is, in any case, a re-direct. Can we pull, tidy up, and then re-open the discussion? doktorb wordsdeeds 06:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pulled --  tariq abjotu  06:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for pulling, please give a reasons before doing something. Look at this, and what i undid here , i consider this is as a direct vandalism --aad_Dira (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Again, no reasons at all for pulling. Please indicate the parts that were unneutral in the sentence, because i don't know even what are you talking about --aad_Dira (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment I agree, pull was premature and now another 50 have been killed. Poor grammar and sentence structure is not sufficient reasoning for not posting. IMO, editors need to stop treating this place like their own personal soapbox. editors should consider devoting more time improving the article rather than wasting time here defending their bias. Wikifan Be nice  09:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what no?? The only reason introduced so far for pulling is POV, without any further details, how are we supposed to fix something we don't even know what is it? --aad_Dira (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Agreed with Lihaas (one of those rare moments). The blurb is hideously POV, and the chorus of editors (including some veterans who should know better) defending the obvious POV is even more hideous. Get a grip on yourselves.  JimSukwutput  22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the blurb that was actually put up, or the one that was suggested here? Because I didn't put up any of the blurbs suggested here. --  tariq abjotu  22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not realize that you put up a different blurb. I was referring to the one being discussed above.  JimSukwutput  22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted The POV tag is gone, and has been for awhile. During that downtime, few changes were made. So, I'm not going to keep holding the item back. And I'm unlikely to personally do anything about it if someone happens to have the urge to slap the tag back on now that the item is back on the Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  22:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can the blurb be changed to "Syrian opposition leaders claim". They are hardly a credible source and have every reason to exaggerate death tolls.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong Investigation Dropped

 * Support, the end (and arguably largest development) in one of the biggest stories/scandals to emerge from cycling, which is a global sport. Lance Armstrong is a globally-recognisable name. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So...nothing happened...?  Night  w   11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that in itself is news after all the feds did to build this up. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this is notable because it represents the end of the US federal involvement in any investigations into LA's alleged doping. This is key because the federal government has powers unavailable to the press and to sporting authorities and there was a significant possibility that such a Federal investigation would shed light that 15 years of muckraking by the media has failed to uncover.  It is now far more likely with this federal investigation behind him that Armstrong will remain officially clear of doping despite widespread belief that he is guilty.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The first Support post says it's the end of the story. No way. The rest of the cycling world is unlikely to accept what a US inquiry says about a US cyclist. Would the dropping of a Spanish government enquiry remove all doubts about Alberto Contador? The fact that no reasons were given for dropping the investigation won't help either. Note that I'm not declaring any opinion about Armstrong and drugs. I have no idea on that. I'm just commenting on the process. I see it as one more step in the saga. Not sure if that makes this particular event important across the world. HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * obvious oppose case is DROPPED (ie- no conviction) and its a minor domestic issue. If the issue was at CAS with repercussions for the world of sport it would be a different issue.Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calling this a 'minor domestic issue' is severely warped. Had a federal investigation uncovered new evidence it would have been of significant interest throughout the cycling world, and Armstrong's 7 TdF titles would have been in question.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * its just as "warped" to presume assrepercusions. nothing at play and no global note.Lihaas (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as I can't see lasting significance in this part of the story, as others have said, cant see this being the end of it. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  08:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because there will be a more substantial cycling story in 12 hours time. Kevin McE (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually took 15½ hours! HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, whenever you try to predict the news, you always run into an unpredictable cycle. --FormerIP (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait election

 * Support &mdash; An important development in Kuwait, particularly given the context of the Arab Spring.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cambodia trial

 * Kang Kek Iew is given life sentence for crimes against humanity in Cambodia. --Tone 09:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this an extension of the original sentence?  Night  w   11:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I look, we've posted the original verdict back in 2010 already. That probably makes the new one less ITN-material... --Tone 11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * strong support its not just upheld its EXTENDED on appeal. that is far more notable.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - The extension of the original sentence is extraordinary and INT-worthy. I've been to the compound this man ran, Tuol Sleng, and found it to be one of the most horrifying experiences of my life. Jus  da  fax   23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * suggested blurb: Former Khmer Rouge jailer Kang Kek Iew has his sentence extended to life in prison on his appeal by a UN tribunal.Lihaas (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not ready — article only has one sentence on the appeal and its rejection. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ferry with hundreds aboard sinks

 * Comment. I presume there will be more updates to come on this. It's good that we have an article on it. It'll need to get past stub size though.  Night  w   07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable disaster. The article provides the relevant information so far. The blurb needs to be made a bit more specific; there were reportedly about 350 passengers & 12 crew. The latest news is that 246 people have been rescued, and no bodies found; the others are still missing. Aridd (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. At least as notable as the Italian cruise ship the other day. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support a more specific blurb. Otherwise, it seems fine.  Lynch 7  17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly notable. I have edited the blurb, but the article is still small. Thelb4(talk) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * markign ready. Good update of several paras and timer is red.Lihaas (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  08:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Best-selling Nobel laureate dies

 * Support You wait for an art story and two come along at once... doktorb wordsdeeds 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Death of a highly notable person.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I found the article enlightening, and it is in pretty good shape. Refreshing change of pace for ITN. Suggest we post this one. Jus  da  fax   05:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting. Feel free to add the photo as well. --Tone 09:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

La Gioconda ; The Prado copy (Mona Lisa)
– HonorTheKing (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator.
 * Possibly a nice story for ITN since we don't feature many art stories. However, the update is really short and contains too many speculations. If this is addressed and the blurb modified correspondingly, my support is here. --Tone 12:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was updated with the necessary information.


 * Strong support Very rare and important art story that definitely suffices inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Grey  Hood   Talk  17:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although an interesting story, its relative impact is rather small- this is simply a copy of the Mona Lisa that provides some insight into the actual painting. Also, Mona_Lisa is too short.  Spencer T♦ C 19:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Strange that this hasn't been posted, ITN features things related to arts so rare and this is a good candidate. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

53 Dead in Japan Snow Storm

 * add ukraine and the ship rescue in turkeyLihaas (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 53 dead in a snow storm is just about enough for me, and the number is likely to grow Crnorizec (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 70+ in ukraine
 * At any rate the article is tagged and tghe update is poorLihaas (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 22-25 deaths in Romania -  Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment — As has been mentioned above, the European cold spell has claimed more lives and certainly has been "in the news" far more than the Japanese one. Given the state of the article, I cannot support, but will not oppose at this stage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * update over 200 dead (mostly homeless in Ukraine) and state of emergency in Bosnia with forecasts for a worsening cold spell. Al Jazeera reports that gas supplies are also limited to demand decrease, worsening the situation. Article needs an update.Lihaas (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Angelo Dundee

 * Just recently confirmed, probably the most famous and influential boxing trainer in history. Trained Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. Also a huge ambassador for the sport. Secret account 03:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose Corenlius was far more notable in more than his area.Lihaas (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A mere trainer, dying at very old age. No impact on current events. For recent deaths. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook's record setting IPO

 * not a chance this goes near itn. no subscriptions, no date of listing. only a confirmed intention.Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lihaas. If anything, we should wait until Facebook is actually traded. Until now, they've only filed the paperwork. --bender235 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Egypt football match violences
At least 40 people were killed at a football game in Egypt. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly newsworthy, appears that 40 is a moderate estimate. No article though? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BBC now reporting "at least 73"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - please improve - Port Said football match disaster - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as soon as the article is decent enough. Main headline on UK BBC website right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also notable that all soccer matches have been banned in the country. Cannot support with the article as a substub, however. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Unusual and freakish event with a high death toll; it's inherent. D arth B otto talk•cont 20:37, 01 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with update - The event is certainly noteworthy but the article is only one paragraph long. It needs to be beefed up before it can be presented on the main page. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The deadliest football riot in Egyptian history. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose people have been dying for weeks, months, in Egypt over all sorts of causes be they political, religious, or sports disputes. It's not particularly different than SNAFU for that country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This is like Hillsborough disaster or Heysel Stadium disaster.  Why would you compare this to some political issue?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - if we posted that knighting story which has no relevance outside the UK we should definitly post this one too.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly "no relevance outside the UK" includes the start of the downfall of the Eurozone which directly affects hundreds of millions of people and indirectly affects billions... Good to see you're up with the news BabbaQ!!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Had it been in any other country in Europe it would never had been posted, thats a fact!! anyway not here to argue about that.. but about the ITN candidate at hand.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But knighthoods are relevant, predominantly, to the UK, and the downfall of the Eurozone is, in part, a major part of that issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I have added a short additional section to the article regarding "ultras", whom it would seem are to blame for much of the violence and are also involved in political protests. Jus  da  fax   21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to post. Give me a good blurb, please. --Tone 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "... that over 70 people were killed in crowd violence following a football match in Egypt." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not DYK... I'll modify that. Posting. --Tone 22:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kindly check for an updae instead of just the "support" as consensus is not vote counting. There is not a word on the incident itself, just background, match details and reactions (and casualties). PULL it asap!Lihaas (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Suprised this is on the frontpage already, as quality wise, the article is a pile of shite.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That happens when the article receives loads of attention after appearing on the Main page. When I posted it, it was quite ok. --Tone 10:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I was involved in supporting the article for ITN and expanding the article itself, I have taken an interest in this situation and cleaned it up somewhat, as well as restored deleted material. Also interesting to note that people are now dying in protests concerning the event. Jus  da  fax   07:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have further cleaned up the article. In my view it needs further work, but since the article is subject to POV editors and is a bit of a "hot potato", if interested parties could keep an eye on it for the next day or two, I'd be much obliged. Jus  da  fax   10:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Don Cornelius
I would like to suggest that this be included in ITN. He was important in his field, a groundbreaker (first African-American to own a nationally syndicated show), internationally recognized/honored, and his was a sudden and tragic death. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * obvious support came to nom myself. more important than other deaths weve postedLihaas (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I agree he was a important figure in the history of modern music. My main concern is that two other very significant people, Wisława Szymborska and Angelo Dundee also died today. Can all three death posts be posted at the same time? If not I think Szymborska and Dundee should be listed first (one a literature Novel Prize winner and the other one probably the most well-known and influential trainer in boxing history) Secret account 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * c ome one, he was far more infleuntial thyan the latter 2.Lihaas (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose for now This may be a justifiable nomination, but we must have some standards as to the quality of what is written on this page. This nomination is rubbish. It fails to follow almost any of the instructions at the top of the page. It seems it's going to be of interest to almost exclusively American readers (I AM guessing here, for obvious reasons), which can be OK, but only if some effort is made to explain to readers who the hell this is, and we have no such explanation. Now, Don Cornelius may be very important, but without some greater effort by those nominating him here, he will miss out. Let's PLEASE raise our standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * and some chick who died of dementia earlier as well as some idiot who had his knighthood revoked is more notable? Please comment on the merits of this. He pioneered change and crossed racial barriers in an arguably heavily racist atmosphere. Akin to Jackie Robinson in the field.
 * Article is adequately updated on his death. marking readyLihaas (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)\
 * You really have completely misread or missed the point of my post. Do try again. (HINT: I did NOT say he was not notable!) And I say again "Let's PLEASE raise our standards here." And again, who the hell was he?!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If only there was a link you could click. What is this, an internet? --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would never nominate a TV or whatever star unknown outside my country without explaining why I was listing him or her, in a few sentences, not just a handful of vague words. Don't make the readers do all the work. Present a case. AND WHY ARE WE STILL NOT USING THE CORRECT STRUCTURE FOR THIS NOMINATION? Does anybody here actually READ AND THINK ABOUT (not just react to) what others post?
 * Except they did explain. Unless this was added after, it reads: "Important in his field", "first African American to own a nationally syndicated show", "internationally recognized." Did you not see it because it wasn't in all caps and bold? --Golbez (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A little harsh there, HiLo48. I felt the article was updated enough for the nomination, put my rational for thinking he was important/famous enough for inclusion, and politely made the nomination for listing. Sorry if I didn't follow the "correct structure"; as it's my first time nominating, I didn't realize there was such a strict process to follow. But you're comments were rather insulting and certainly put me off wanting to ever nominate again. Maybe I'm being a bit sensitive, but you're comments did smart a bit. Not sure if I care to come back; thanks. Rhodesisland (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A notable person dies = recent deaths. There's nothing special about this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - agree with HiLo. His article doesn't seem to indicate a sufficient level of notability for the main page. We have a sticky link for recent deaths.  Night  w   10:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look. There are very obvious, very clear instructions at the top of the page. I make no apology for asking that they be followed, even by new editors once they have had them pointed out to them. But even worse was the seeming support you received from very experienced editors who also could have helped, but didn't seem to care about the rules, just wanting to attack me. I would have helped, because I suspect this is a valid nomination, but being non-American have no idea who this person even is. You have been badly let down by fellow American, experienced editors who could have made this work, but preferred a fight. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - HiLo, you really need to moderate your rhetoric here. Multiple exclamation points and bolded, all caps comments are not conducive to collaborative editing. I'm going to ask you, with all the due respect one multiple contributor deserves from another, to stand down if you cannot control your temper tantrums and stop biting newcomers here, no matter how much you think they deserve it. We need more people helping at ITN and Wikipedia in general, not less. Cannot you at least strike out or refactor your bluster above? And if not, would an admin take a look at issuing a warning or block if HiLo persists? It seems to me we have to draw a line somewhere. Jus  da  fax   07:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've requested Hilo to consider refactoring/striking and to find a better way to express him/herself here. Hopefully there won't be a need for any further adminstrative action over this editor's participation here. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have also left a note of apology on Rhodesisland's talk page in an attempt to undo the damage.  Jus  da  fax   09:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else here really carefully read what others have written? I did not explicitly attack the newbie. Now, have another read, of everything I have written, please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that you didn't explictly attack this newbie, but you're response was a bit extreme. If you feel the other experienced editors were striking back at you, perhaps there's some bad blood already there over other times you've been a bit harsh?


 * This is not about what you say, but the way that you say it. There is a discussion regarding your ongoing disruption of ITN on the talk page. Jus  da  fax   17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * for the record it seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black as elucidated by the fact that the nom WAS clarified with the comment that "could someone explain who he was." well to that must be said: "does anybody here really carefully read what others have written" + the fact that saying "did not explicitly attack" is directly contradicted by "Look. There are very obvious, very clear instructions at the top of the page. I make no apology for asking that they be followed, even by new editors"Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As advised, I've looked at the template to see how I should have gone about the nomination; but I quickly got lost. Personally, I think it is too complex and uses too many of the mark up symbols and makes it confusing for newbies to use. When I have another nomination, I will take the time to try it, but can't promise it'll be "correct".Rhodesisland (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * good to see you bakc. give it a go and /or ask for help.
 * Incidentally HiLo, please take the time to practice what you peach and do read what it says for the nom format: "Preferably use the template... "Lihaas (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)