[Posted] Fred Goodwin loses his knighthood

Nominator's comments: Very significant for somebody to have a knighthood rescinded. There has been huge political pressure for this to happen from all sides. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (as nominator) - This is a big story in the UK and brings an end to years of calls for him to lose it. The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all been involved and it's been the lead story on news bulletins all over the country. Noteworthy because of how rare it is and because it's due to the part he played in the downturn we're all living through. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant as this one was not withdrawn for criminal activity, which Lester Piggott's OBE was. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - local story, not interesting or significant for anyone outside the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I find this a fascinating story that is likely to be of interest to a wide readership. Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. By the way, I am an American citizen, since that seems to be an issue here. Personally, I don't think it should be. Cheers! Jusdafax 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There's no doubt that this is significant. It's comparable to one having a Congressional Medal of Honor revoked.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There have been only six revocations ever (if this article is in shape) since the dawn of the universe. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Time for British editors to make their case! This is very rare (see Chocolate Horlicks). It is highly, highly uncommon for people to have their titles revoked. It is highly rare for people to be AWARDED them (and some Americans have, of course, been awarded honouary titles). That Sir Fred has had his knighthood revoked is significant in many fields - business, politics especially - and is doubtlessly highly notable. doktorb _words^deeds 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We could easily lose the blockquote at the foot of the article, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not just because some fat cat banker lost the one of the highest civil honours available, but it was absolutely part of the mismanagement of banks in the UK, lending a helping hand to the economic "crisis" Europe finds itself in. Of course, expect to see many arguments of limited interest outside the Eurozone but this is English language Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, albeit a mild one. This is essentially a domestic political gesture of no wider significance. Sure, it's a rare event but rare events happen all the time. There's no real allegation of personal misconduct, this is merely another manifestation of the currently popular "give bankers a bloody nose" sentiment. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Support very rare and important event. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 22:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Support Agree with the point that Crispmuncher makes about this being a domestic political gesture, but the significance of that gesture, the fact the Monarch has got directly involved, is what makes me support. Mtking ^(edits) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Oppose this is the third time since 1991 that somebody is stripped of knighthood. Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK, this is not that ITN worthy. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK - you might want to check that comment out, plenty of Australian's have them, and of interest here see The Australian. Mtking ^(edits) 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have to disagree with crispmuncher. This isn't simply a political gesture designed to appease the public. His knighthood was awarded for services to banking, yet he was personally responsible for bringing RBS, a bank that was once the biggest in the world, to a point of near collapse. He took huge risks and bought another bank with cash (ABN AMRO) that turned out to be a complete dud which lead to RBS needing taxpayer money to keep it going. The Honours Forfeiture Committee said that his holding a knighthood brought the honours system into disrepute. As to the argument that knighthoods aren't widely known outside the UK, everyone's heard of Sir Elton John and Dame Elizabeth Taylor, right? --109.145.117.119 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I also have to disagree with crispmuncher. The banking story is huge, as noted above. Knighthoods are well known, from Sir Francis Drake, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sir Paul McCartney. This story should be posted without further delay; in my view, consensus has been reached and minority arguments against posting are not convincing. Jusdafax 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as ready (I would post, but I !voted) Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb - I'm not happy with the blurb. It's different to the blurb I proposed even though nobody raised any objection during the above discussion. First of all, it should be 'Queen Elizabeth II'. Queen Elizabeth is just not the correct way to write her name and creates confusion. Second, it should be 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', not 'the Royal Bank of Scotland'. Pedantic maybe, but hey, I'm a pedant. Lets just get it right. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You proposing a blurb doesn't necessarily mean it's the blurb that will end up being used. The fact that no one objected to the blurb is rather irrelevant as the discussion wasn't about the blurb but rather about the news item. In any case, your blurb did go up as you proposed, but was adjusted by a different admin, David Levy, who you should ask about it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, to be fair "Queen Elizabeth" is utterly wrong and needs fixing. We're about 400 years beyond Queen Elizabeth, the current monarch is never referred to as such but ITN is such a flame-fest I'm reluctant to fix it. Hopefully David Levy (or someone disinterested) can adjust this... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't somebody just fix it? It's a matter of fact, not opinion. Queen Elizabeth is wrong, Queen Elizabeth II is right. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm a bit taken aback by the assertion that the current monarch is "never" referred to as "Queen Elizabeth", and I certainly don't see how this could "create confusion" in a context obviously referring to a living person, but I've added the "II".
          Our article is titled "Royal Bank of Scotland" and refers to "the Royal Bank of Scotland" throughout the prose (unless beginning a sentence). —David Levy 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well Queen Elizabeth, as I'm sure you're aware, was a 16th/17th century monarch and in no way similar to our current monarch who is never legitimately referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" (that's purely erroneous). So thanks for fixing that. As for RBOS, the company themselves call it "The Royal Bank of Scotland", regardless of our erroneous article title. But since we go with reliable sources, not first-party sources, I guess this'll have to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be confusing in the same way that 'President Barack' would be confusing. It's just not right and everybody who knows it's not right would be confused as to why an encyclopedia is making such a basic error. I agree with The Rambling Man that any legitimate source knows that Queen Elizabeth is not right and the assertation that she is NEVER referred to as such is accurate if we are only basing it on credible sources. As for 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', the company's own website uses this format and therefore our article is wrong. Perhaps it has been stylised that way to conform to Wiki-standards which is fine, but it doesn't make it correct. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll take your word for it that referring to the current monarch as "Queen Elizabeth" is improper, but it's quite common among news media inside and outside the UK.
              To be clear, I'm not defending the practice or arguing that we should follow suit; I'm explaining why I believed it to be acceptable. I apologize for my confusion and thank the two of you for setting me straight.
              If "The" is an official part of the bank's name, our article should be renamed/edited accordingly. (This doesn't contradict Wikipedia's conventions.) —David Levy 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wouldn't say it's "improper", just inaccurate. News media "inside" the UK don't say "Queen Elizabeth" ever, as far as I know, they just say "the Queen", so not sure where you get that idea from. As for naming the bank, it's probably pretty common that articles slated for main page inclusion aren't named correctly, this is just another example of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's really no need to apologise, David. I would be genuinely amazed if any reputable news media referred to her as Queen Elizabeth. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • BBC News, London Evening Standard, The Australian, The Gazette/National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CBS News, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters
                  Of course, references to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana" (which I know to be incorrect) probably are more widespread. —David Levy 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually, that is perfectly correct, as is a plain "Queen Elizabeth". Lack of precision does not make it wrong, especially when who is being referred to is clear from the context. Personally, I don't see why we are focussing so much on her anyway, she acted in name only, there was never any question of her not following the official request. We're generally not so pernickety about e.g. the Queen calling a general election, although constitutionally only she has that power. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
                    • I thought that "Queen Elizabeth" was correct (and merely lacked precision unneeded in this context), but I've been told that it isn't.
                      My understanding is that the styling "Princess Diana" is improper because Diana was neither born a princess nor created one by the Queen. ("Princess Charles" would have been correct, but it never entered popular use.) —David Levy 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Diana was made a princess in her own right, in contrast to Kate Middleton who wasn't. The reasoning given there is that she wasn't marrrying the next in line to the throne. Crispmuncher (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
                        • Source? —David Levy 16:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I can see that my trust in respected news media was somewhat misplaced. I still believe that Queen Elizabeth is an incorrect way of referring to her. Perhaps it would be acceptable in an informal context I'm not sure, but certainly in an encyclopedia we should be using her correct name, which is Queen Elizabeth II. That's a good point about Princess Diana actually. Almost everybody refers to her in that way even though it has never been correct. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just reiterating I posted the blurb suggested here...I would agree that "Queen Elizabeth" needs the "II" on the end, so good move fixing that. I'm also wondering whether linking "knighthood" might be advisable, but beyond that the blurb looks alright to me the way it is now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certainly not sentimental about the blurb I wrote, I just object to it being substituted to one with errors in it. My only interest here is to present accurate information to the reader. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I respectfully ask that the blurb be changed to 'The Royal Bank of Scotland' now that the article's title has been corrected? Thanks. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shafia family murders

 --Jayron32 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Major case in Canada regarding so-called "Honor killings". Been all over the news today. The article is OK, and I know the update is a bit short, but hoping that attention here at ITN/C could encourage a bigger update regarding the conviction and reactions to it. I'm a bit short on time at the minute, but hope to get on this as well in the near future. Given the coverage in the news, this seems to be a newsworthy event, so I think that if we can add a paragraph or so of text on the conviction, it would be ITN worthy. Besides, its been a bit slow, and an update once in a while is nice. --Jayron32 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just so you know thats something normal in the arab/islamic countries and arab/islamic families arround the world.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The case established that murder is illegal in Canada. That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me, regardless of what some extremists may believe. I'm leaning towards oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as it has no real significance. Honour killings have never been legal in this country and the whole hubub behind this case was the media putting the Islamic spin on it. Besides, by all accounts the decision will be appealed. A media-driven case with no major legal significance isn't good enough for ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Men's European Water Polo Championship

Nominator's comments: European Championship in the Olympic sport, also related to the spots at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. --Avala (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since it's Olympic sport with growing popularity everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning toward oppose. Although these are international level championships that lead to the Olympics, they are not at the highest international level (like the Olympics or 2011 FINA Men's Water Polo World League). Spencer^T♦C 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. Hardly any text in the article. As far as I know, water polo is a minor sport, almost insignificant as a spectator sport, along the lines of rythmic gymnastics or, well, I was going to say team handball but it looks like that's another story. The fact that a sport is in the Olympics doesn't make its regional championship a major news event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Mwalcoff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite being a Olympic sport, it is almost a minority sport with no wide media coverage outside of the Olympics like handball. Donnie Park (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question is a notion that it is a "minor sport" an objective or a subjective view? Because it is an Olympic sport. So this can only be seen as POV pushing. What differentiates handball from waterpolo? Objectively nothing. Most of the people from Europe may see baseball as something relevant along the lines of rhythmic gymnastics yet we will include it in the ITN as the POV is not what we are here for.--Avala (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the page, the gold medal game was attended by 2300 people, a pretty strong and objective indication that the sport is minor. Even the most sparsely attended regular-season Major League Baseball game will have a paid attendance almost five times that. Fourteen countries broadcast games from the tournament and ten broadcast the final--or, less than half of the countries than are showing this year's Super Bowl. Whether Europeans "see" baseball or American football as something akin to rhythmic gymnastics or waterpolo, objective facts are that they are not. PeteF3 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's completely inappropriate to compare a sports game played indoors with one played outdoors. Attendance of 2,300 spectators for a swim stadium with capacity of 3,000 makes it more than 75%. Five times that makes it 12,000 which is barely 25% of the average capacity for a baseball stadium.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't bring up any comparison to baseball, just expanded on it. If there are no swim stadiums with a capacity over 3,000, well...see the first point. Evidently the demand just isn't high enough to justify it. Hockey and basketball are played indoors and most top-level teams would go under at the first game with a 2300-3000 attendance. The comparison was also between a gold medal game and a regular-season baseball game--no stadium in the U.S. would fail to sell out a World Series game. PeteF3 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is the point of mentioning 2300 attendance if that is the maximum of the venue? It's not comparable with football, or at least you then need to say, it's like 75000 people attending football final which all out of a sudden is no longer sounding so bad. And what do you think is the attendance of other sports with limited venues? How many people attend Formula 1 or ski jumping? However here is another number which I would like to hear a comment on - 2.749.000 people watched the game in Serbia alone, and that is not counting cable channels which also had it on, just the RTS station - [1]. That's about the third of a population, pretty much the same percentage as the Super Bowl in the US. How is that for irrelevant?--Avala (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2012 European Men's Handball Championship

Nominator's comments: Handball is sport that receives growing attention in the countries where it was not previously played. It was reported that coach of the Great Britain Olympic team will attend the final accompained with other members of the OC for the Olympic event. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There should be a prose summary of the final match in the article. Spencer^T♦C 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and further explanation: This is an Olympic sport (has been since 1972) and a truly international one. It's NOT the game known commonly as Handball in the USA, Ireland and Australia. (A look at the Handball disambiguation page will help interested readers.) The relevant Wikipedia article for this sport is Team handball. If you've never heard of it, here's your big chance to broaden your knowledge! HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Olympic sport.--Avala (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've updated the section about the final adding some prose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting Consensus seems clear, update is sufficient, and timer running out. Spencer^T♦C 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does consensu\is "seem clear" with 2 supports when its not a minority topic and the article needs updating???!Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was 100% clear because nobody had opposed the nomination at that time. Updating the article was needed, but has nothing to do with consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose pending some kind of proof that this is a "big deal." When I lived in Europe, it seemed team handball was a game played in front of sparse crowds with limited media coverage. Will reconsider if someone can demonstrate to me that this is a major event that a lot of readers care about. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the attendance of 100% of seats in a 25000 arena is a sparse crowd what is then good attendance for you? Selling two tickets per seat? That is illegal and against safety regulations. There is your proof.--Avala (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. One what basis was consensus 'clear'? THe article has almost no prose except the final match. Has receieved minimal media coverage in English. The sport has very limited popularity outside a small portion of the world. We already have the World Championship for this sport; the European championship is of no interest to readers outside continental Europe. This is sports cruft.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On what basis was consensus clear?" Ummm. No opposition at the time. "Has receieved minimal media coverage in English." Hmmm. Those evil foreigners who don't speak Godzone! Is that really one of our criteria? "limited popularity" The final filled what is described as "one of the largest indoor arenas in the world". What more can it do? "small portion of the world" I don't really want to reopen old wounds, but Joe Paterno? "We already have the World Championship...the European championship is of no interest to readers outside continental Europe" The same could probably be said about the world championship anyway, but so what? I could say Joe Paterno again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Lack of English media coverage matters for sourcing. The current article lacks any media sources in English. It's entirely reliant on one German article and the official tournament website for references
    • Not sure what bringing up JoPa does except open old wounds, but both recent college football nominations recently were not posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Replace Joe with American Football. One small area of the world. No world championship to even compare anything with. Look, these objections are exactly the kind of thing that discourages people nominating items here. We need MORE items. And you guys come up with not very serious objections. I can't figure it. Why do you do it, really? HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Couldn't care less about handball, but for those saying that this final hasn't been covered by English sources, see Reuters, ESPN, AFP, Al Jazeera (video). Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Australian Open

 --Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have nomination about this event. Men's final can be discussed in the same nomination. I suggest to close this one, just to provide more comprehension on the page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support through the expansion of the previous proposal for the women's final.--Avala (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Propose to add in a "record breaking" final and also to mention the 100th anniversary of the event.

man, 2/3 Serbian finals victories today ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2012 Australian Open

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be nice if we could speedily post this given how slow ITN has been of late but there's nothing there we can call an update: simply filling in the blanks giving the result isn't enough. The separate article on the women's singles specifically doesn't seem a whole lot better. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

rcomment take our becomes world number 1, we can add that prose on the page.Lihaas (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment it seems to be all results tables with very little prose except to summarize the tables. That seemed to get another recent ITN/R item a sour face. Article is otherwise fine, won't oppose. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

better link?Lihaas (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 23:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After the men's final ends the blurb documenting the conclusion of the event should say something like: "In tennis, Novak Djokovic and Victoria Azarenka win the men's and women's tournament respectively with Azarenka becoming new World No. 1."--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to think that mentioning that the men's final (now finished) was the longest ever grand slam final as per here would be better in the blurb than a new women's number one given how many times that ranking has changed hands in the last decade. Davewild (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and propose: "In tennis, the 100th anniversary of the men's tournament results in a record-setting Novak Djokovic win and Victoria Azarenka wins the women's 2012 Australian Open." Lil cumbersome but something similarv.Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --WhiteWriter ^speaks 01:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A better combined blurb: In tennis, Victoria Azarenka and Novak Djokovic win the women's and men's singles titles respectively at the 2012 Australian Open. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just add 100th, In tennis, Victoria Azarenka and Novak Djokovic win the women's and men's singles titles respectively at the 100th 2012 Australian Open. and now please add it, what are the admins waiting for? --Avala (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. There's enough prose regarding the both finals. And we can add some new photos. --Tone 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protests in Senegal

Nominate. --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Needs update and a clarification on the size of the attacks (were they major? how many killed?) The size of the clashes would determine notability. Spencer^T♦C 19:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just checked for the same. AP, BBC, Reuters, no one seems to have numbers. Also it looks like it was only 1 day. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT just 1 day...its ongoing. ditto Congo DR, but thats smaller. Senegal is certainly in the news.Lihaas (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas is right, it's not just one day of protest. --bender235 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Arab League suspends Syria mission

 --Found5dollar (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support - for posting asap.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --bender235 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The whole article could use some expansion, especially the timeline section (Arab_League_Monitors_in_Syria#Timeline). Spencer^T♦C 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What is going on in Syria is on every major news outlet yet we havent posted anything about it since god knows when. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Failure of the Arab League mission is big news, as noted, and has wide implications for the near and long term prospects for peace in the country and region. Agree, however, that the article needs work. Jusdafax 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't think this article would even be considered for posting when I started it like a day ago. Definitely a stub, flags are placed in the wrong area and formatting needs fixing. I don't have time to edit ATM but can make changes later in the week. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update/Support I added a brief new section describing the suspension. That's really the only big news. Media and UN made a ton of noise about the Arab League monitors and the pull-out is definitely ITN worthy. I think the article meets the threshold requirements, but I think the timeline could be merged into a "background/history" section. I understand an editor took down the "ready" tag because of my statements. I started the article but obviously it is not my possession. The article has been updated dramatically compared to the first edit. No need to make those kinds of changes because of my opinion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So is this going to be posted? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] ACTA signing, rapporteur's resignation and Polish protests

   — C M B J   07:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Update, though thin, is otherwise sufficient. Placing this on the front page may encourage further revision.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

with treaties general policy is when it comes into effect. If it has immiedately then i support too and the timer is red for a while.Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It doesn't come into effect in the EU before being signed by the EU parliament, as I understand it. But it still seems high-profile enough to post now also; it has been in the news a lot. Thue | talk 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is very very long and the lead doesn't really explain whats going on. Is it an agreement to establish an agreement, or is it the actual agreement? Has anyone ratified it yet? Are the protests in Poland significant enough to boost the notability? Lots of other protests have gotten sour faces around here. If I were a drive-by reader and clicked the bold link, I would want to know in a few sentences what all the hubub is about. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. 1 2   — C M B J   23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. Spencer^T♦C 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Funso (re-nom) [Posted]

• This was pushed off the list by robot, but there still appears to be enough space on the ITN section and we gained three supports plus an article at Cyclone Funso. Proposed blurb:

Intense Tropical Cyclone Funso stalls offshore central Mozambique, killing 15 at sea and at least 14 from inland flooding.

~AH1 ^(discuss!) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. Since there was support expressed before already, I am waiting for one more opinion and then I can post. --Tone 08:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article's update is of extremely high quality. Spencer^T♦C 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support the article says "was a deadly" and "was the eighth" in past tense, then still says "active". Still it's a decent article. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Spencer^T♦C 03:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency law in Egypt abolished

Nominator's comments: The news was followed with high international acclamation and positive responses. It used to be in force since 1967, but with no interruptions after the assasination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. My blurb suggestion indicates the full length of the law in force, instead of only the time after it was reimposed in 1981.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt it briefly revoked after mubarak and then quickly reimposed...im quite sure i read of that and then a few days (werek?) later restoredLihaas (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article says "partially lifted" but the blurb says abolished. There is a bit of a gulf between the two. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Please clarify[reply]

Rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen

XavierGreen (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence: However, a point to consider against inclusion is that anti-piracy operations are/were quite common (at least through 2010 and early 2011). During this period, the Indian navy alone had 15+ operations (including the controversial sinking of a Thai trawler which had been converted to a mothership by the pirates) where around 30 pirates were killed, 140 captured (and taken to India for prosecution) and around 80 hostages rescued. I used the Indian navy as an example because I had been following these news reports - I am sure other navies, especially those part of the CTF-150 would have had similar or comparable operations. Points in favour would be that this is a land raid on Somali soil as opposed to Somali territorial waters and that this was a planned operation as opposed to a response to an SOS. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • US ground actions in Somalia are quite rare.XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention this came from the commander-in-chief and involved as XavierGreen put, "rare" ground operations. --Nutthida (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its also gained signifigant media coverage over the past 12 hours or so.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is but the latest in a series of small scale military operations in or near Somalia undertaken by several countries in response to the country's lawlessness. While interesting, it's hardly a major news story outside the US. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wait for the movie. (and as per Nick) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Many other navies have done much more in the Suez-Persian Gulf area, though I agree this was a bit different. Lynch7 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A state power using military force to free two of it's citizens == news. A state power violating the sovereignty of another nation == news. Military force used as part of that violation == news. Therefore this == news. Regarding objections above: go back in time to the Indian navy raid and nominate it then, it was news. If it wasn't nominated, then waaaaa. Not news outside the us? Who cares, happens all the time. See item #3 above. "Wait for the movie" hahahahaha you're hilarious but not the least bit helpful. Other navies have done this, again, nominate it then. Also this was a land raid inside Somalia and not in international waters. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relax man, no-one's waaa-ing... no need for the melodrama. Was just trying to give some points that I considered valid both for and against. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize, your response was very even and reasoned, but by the time I got down to "wait for the movie" I kind of went on a rampage. "waaaaa" remark is withdrawn. Though I stand by the rest of it, I would have supported the Indian navy action if I had been active here at the time. It's no reason to discount the current action. Especially with a red timer at the 36 hour mark... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question (really a comment) Why does this nomination have such a meaningless title? "Action of 25 January 2012" is particularly non-explanatory. Almost guaranteed to lead to a "What?" response. I am not taking sides on the nomination, but I will, as I often do (even though it annoys some here), comment on the quality of discussion. Surely a name such as "US Navy Seals' anti-piracy action of 25 January 2012" would be better. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is silly and vague, could mean anythign reall. i tried renaming 2 scuch articles.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who move protected the article to prevent a movewar, I would say that there is a precedent for "action of (date)" titles. As I said at the talk page, I've no objection to the issue being discussed via WP:RM and a better title being formulated that has consensus. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's overwhelming agreement that the article's current title is unsuitable. Any of the alternative titles suggested on the talk page would be preferable. A WP:RM discussion might be helpful, but in the interim, we shouldn't be stuck with the one title obviously lacking consensus. We literally could draw straws and arrive at a better outcome. —David Levy 13:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've initiated a move request. —David Levy 14:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (for the record); while I am sympathetic to the news item, the article name needs to be addressed (see HiLo48's comments above), secondly the topic probably does not meet WP:EVENT for a standalone article so should be merged into an article that can give the reader a better over context to the event. Mtking ^(edits) 06:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Jaipur Literature Festival

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.104.165 (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)‎[reply]

• Comment. Please sign your posts, so that we know who nominated this. I don't think this should go up; its an incident quite expected, given that there are crucial elections coming up in India. Lynch7 11:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the information Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although the blurb needs to make it clear who was doing the reading. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Notable both in Indian and international media. Although the update could do with a little more beef (hehe). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Disturbing story and notable in the literal/political/religious world. But yes, certainly needs more of an update, --Nutthida (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article appears to have been adequately updated since. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late with this comment, but maybe the blurb should be amended. According to the news reports, Rushdie was never actually due to "appear" at the festival, except by means of a video link. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, he was scheduled to appear in person all right. Seriously, this blurb is way too inadequate to satisfactorily sum up the drama that happened in relation to this. Lynch7 18:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. According to all the reports, he was scheduled to make a videoconference call to the festival: [2], [3], [4]. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The attempted video appearance came after the attempted personal appearance was cancelled. Quote from statement by Rushdie read out at the festival, "I will therefore not travel to Jaipur as planned". But an appearance is an appearance anyway, even if it is by video link it is still an appearance so there is nothing wrong with the way it is phrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.104.154 (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] E.U. oil embargo on Iran

 --WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will need updating, if in fact a new article is not needed. Meanwhile, this story appears to be doing the rounds and is probably sufficient for inclusion on ITN, especially since the timer's red. --WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Significant development in the "cold war on Iran". Although it should be mentioned that these section only begin to take effect in July. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, a significant event in global politics. The BBC say that the EU currently buys ~20% of Iran's oil exports so the potential impact is very significant for both sides. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Important development in a global situation. Owen (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Certainly significant. Swarm ^X 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant. Truthsort (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Since there seems to be a consensus, shouldn't this be posted before it goes stale? I added a couple of sentences to the article, but I don't think it's enough, and it would be nice to have some insight from a few more politically savvy editors.--WaltCip (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The update at this moment is not sufficient. With all the sources available, it shouldn't be too hard to write a decent paragraph on the topic. --Tone 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated.--WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics

 --Feroang (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1,059 Athletes, from 70 nations in 15 diferent sports.--Feroang (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It seems to have exceeded the expectations. I did support it when the event was commencing, but now we have the summary that proves its notability and importance on international level.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nowhere near top level of sport. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have only seen this event covered here. Not in any major newspaper, not on the television news, not anywhere. It can't just be because I'm in the UK - this event is simply not notable enough to be on the front page. Minority interest sports by young people - not good enough. doktorb _words^deeds 07:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - international coverage of the event. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The opening of the Games was nominated and there was not enough support to post. I guess closing is very much a similar case. And in comparisson to the "regular" Olympics, the press coverage is negligible, what is rather surprising. --Tone 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the "special" Olympics passes through ITN/R. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be on the wrong page, as this isn't the place to discuss whether or not something belongs on ITN/R. --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm in Sweden, where winter sport is normally followed by many. Media coverage of these games however: almost nothing. There seems to have been a huge inflation in <Something> Olympic Games in recent years, but without actual notability or media coverage, nobody gives a *. Not actually "In the news" => don't post at WP:ITN/Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeni president seeking treatment in United States

 --Feroang (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a nation change his Head of State after 34 years, that is ITN --Feroang (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing here that says he's stepping down. He left the country for treatment last year, and returned without stepping down. Thus, oppose. --Golbez (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose', he's not stepping down. He's travelled abroad for medical treatment. Deinitely not noteworthy enough. Peter (Talk page) 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Joe Paterno

[Posted] Croatia referendum

Referendum on EU accession takes place in Croatia. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Roughly 2/3 of the voters supported accession, according to early results. A more reliable result should be known later tonight. Needs an update and then it's good to go. The article is in a good shape otherwise. --Tone 19:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose add it when they officially joiin the eu, though i would support if it failed as more notable., this is routine with a referendum to join the eu.Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We did post stories like Iceland starting accession talks with the EU in 2009 or some countries becoming official candidates earlier. --Tone 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did we? hmmm...dont think we should have though..guess i cold go neutralLihaas (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - notable geopolitical event. Voomie (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as soon as ready. I don't mean to be anal, but can we have a template box with a blurb please? --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support democracy is always welcome--Feroang (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, surely a notable event across the whole EU. JIP | Talk 06:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More or less ready to post, when some parts of prose are changed to reflect that the incomplete results have been announced. The blurb: Voters in Croatia back EU membership in a referendum? --Tone 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated, since there was no feedback, posting the proposed blurb. Feel free to modify. --Tone 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of 15 Pakistani soldiers by Taliban

Nominator's comments: I am unsure why this is so under-reported. I am not happy with the blurb so feel free to modify it. ---- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Finnish presidential election

Nominator's comments: Election takes place tomorrow, results should be out soon after.Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should of course be posted, but we don't need a prior discussion for this. Pending the update, it's a guaranteed post. Until then there's really nothing to discuss. —WFC— 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apparently, there will be a second round. So we'll post the result then. --Tone 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the nom.Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Cup of Nations

Nominator's comments: Now started. Get it on the front page. Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come back and inform us that the article is fully updated after the final on 12 Feb, and it will go up, as it is on ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the Olympics wont go up until that's finished? Or the next FIFA world cup? Lugnuts (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will support only a sticky. The start is not so big deal. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sports events have only their final result posted. I believe that the Olympics and the World Cup are the only events for which the start is regularly mentioned, and the Olympics has to final result to report. Do you really wish to argue that CAN is of equivalent status? Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For CAE, only the final result will make it to ITN. No sticky either. --Tone 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the concerns above. But per ITN/R, once the tournament concludes, we'll post it then. Resolute 16:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the conclusion of the tournament. It is an important event anyway and the final outcome should be posted per ITN/R.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Powerful cyclone hits offshore Mozambique [Ready]

Nominator's comments: The cyclone struck days after another tropical disturbance hit southern Mozambique (the first storm to do so since 1984), and its path potentially puts that same area at risk of further flooding. Recent floods in the past week are almost reminiscent of 2000. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support-definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Given that the Nominator's comment partly depends on prediction and speculation at this stage ("...its path potentially puts that same area at risk...", let's see how it actually pans out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment IF decided the updaet is adequate...3 paras and sourced.Lihaas (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - 3 paras would be too much for that article since its meant to be a summary of the storm, but if things pan out we should be able to give it a main article at Cyclone Funso.Jason Rees (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with an ITN-impact, a separate article is in place. --Tone 14:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the media coverage and the casualities of the cyclone. It surely is very strong to make such damage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The total number of killed has risen to at least 40. Marking [ready]. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an article now at Cyclone Funso. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian parliamentary election

• Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant development. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb needs to be improved, as written it implies the revolution just happened. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

better? (although it was only months after the revolution, with continuing revolutionary demands, if you must.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb should be amended with the "Islamist-"Freedom and Justice" party. Also, the party didn't win a plurality - it won a majority. link. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats pov, the article can say that, not the main page. even if understood it sets another agenda.

Also "coalition led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood won 47 percent" thats not a majority.Lihaas (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then it would probably be better to just say that Islamist parties win 75% of the vote in the elections. It is a bit misleading to include only one party when the entire bloc dominated the elections. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no love lost between the Salafis and the Muslim Brothers. It's not correct to lump them together. They're rather rivals than allies. Couldn't we write that Freedom&Justice won, and the Salafis came second? Btw, it's not POV to say the Freedom&Justice Party is Islamist, it's a fact. --RJFF (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto thats its not a bloc, ad who uses the islamist tag? the media does. At any rate, we dont pust "centre-right" /"centre-left", etc when we post elections. Let the reader judge from the link.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues before this can be posted. What's the cleanup tag doing at the top? Needs to be addressed. Second, the table in the third stage paragraph needs to be filled in. --Tone 15:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just needs the update.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nigeria attacks

Nominator's comments: I lost the source i was copying it from and a bit tired to find it now, should be easy if someone can just add that merged from newly created 1-l;ine pageLihaas (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Another devastating attack in Nigeria's conflict zone. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Reasonably sized article. Okay sourcing. Looks good enough for posting. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant number of deaths. Shrigley (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Needs more expansion about the events. Spencer^T♦C 23:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I concur with Spencer - this isn't ready because there is nowhere near a minimal update. As it is right now the article can't make up its mind what its subject is. The very first sentence tells us the article concerns the attacks of January 6 & 7. Either that needs revisiting or the latest attacks belong somewhere else, with a lot of expansion to be ITN worthy: currently there is one sentence in the lede and a section composed of a single sentence. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very significant news story. Though the article needs work, I think posting this on the front page will ensure that work will be done very quickly. Owen (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how ITN works. The article needs to be of sufficient quality before it is posted to the Main Page. 76.205.75.37 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started some expansion of the article, and I hope those who also support its promotion will do more. I agree that posting it on the front page will not necessarily ensure that work will be done. Very little work was done on the Ma Ying-jeou election article since it was posted, even though that article is arguably more accessible than this one. Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is how ITN used to work, and it worked rather well. I don't see why it wouldn't now. As for this article and the election article, I think both cover the basics of their subjects well enough, but there is only so much information available at this time, and only so much that needs to be said. Owen (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Important story, and article looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The clashes are continuing with a death toll risen over 190.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Håkan Juholt resigns

Nominator's comments: The head of Swedens main opposition party resigns after a number of "scandals" less than a year after being appointed. Feel free to change the blurb. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obvious oppose in opposition and not ruling. he also only resigns as HEAD not from the party/parliament (if hes sitting)Lihaas (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Domestic incident of no greater interest beyond Stockholm. doktorb _words^deeds 22:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, Juholt didnt even held his last news conference in Stockholm but in Oskarshamn a small town far away from Stockholm. Had this been the UK or USA it would have been on ITN already. Sad but true.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed my point. There's no interest in a domestic politician stepping down. It's just trivial news for a domestic market. "Leader of UK Opposition Party stands down" would have no chance either. It's just not important enough. Sad, but true. doktorb _words^deeds 06:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Opposition leaders changing is a regular occurence the world over. It is a natural consequence of being on a losing team. Unless a resignation is for a particularly notable reason, such as being maimed in a zoo rampage or deciding to pursue a career in pornography, it's not worthy of being posted here. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA and PIPA postponed due to Internet blackout

Nominator's comments: I do recognize that this may be a bit of navel-gazing (even after de-Wikipedia-ifying the blurb), though this still remains a hot topic in the news. But this has shown that the Internet protest was effective (and while it is about US politics, it was a global participation and with potential global impacts). --MASEM (t) 17:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support You beat me to it, I was coming here to post. The blurb isn't ideal, I was thinking "In response to opposition from (the internet?), SOPA and PIPA are put on hold indefinitely". Either update the existing post and move it back to #1 or make a new one. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful oppose at the moment, for two reasons. Firstly because if we are going to post this, the article would *have* to be renamed first. It's one thing to link to English Wikipedia blackout for the current blurb, quite another to claim sole credit for this achievement. Secondly pending evidence that media organisations more widely are concluding that there was a causal link between the protests and these decisions (although I consider that likely to happen). —WFC— 18:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do support an update of sorts, I'm just very uncomfortable with the blurb drawing an explicit connection between the protests and the bills being postponed, however obvious it seems that one led to the other. I could get on board with a weaker statement to the same effect, such as "Following protests on January 18,..." —WFC— 07:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it was doomed to fail at least a month before the blackouts. [14] Hot Stop^UTC 18:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "too many" SOPA and PIPA for this month, even if this is happening now, wait until more accion do happend--Feroang (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Update It was already posted, so why do we need to post it again, just update it, nothing else. Donnie Park (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, is there a 2012 SOPA Blackout article yet to link to? Google, Craigslist, Reddit, many heavies participated in some way. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an update to the exiting entry. Mtking ^(edits) 07:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Etta James

Notable singer dies at age of 73. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support historically significant singer. Donnie Park (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support while the death was expected, her influence to the music field was too significant to pass up. Many key awards and achievements, was a significant influence to the rise of R&B music and for some of the biggest singers of our time, like Janis Joplin. Rolling Stone magazine called her the 23rd greatest singer of all time. Plus the article is in decent shape. Secret ^account 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Her legacy is huge, she's in the Hall of Fame and is respected by just about everyone who knows something about music. No issue whatsoever in putting on the front page. doktorb _words^deeds 03:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per above. Decent article with an image, and well known outside of her home country. —WFC— 07:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cant add anything that has not been said above. Mtking ^(edits) 07:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested blurb: "Soul singer Etta James (pictured) dies at the age of 73." (or a variation that meets our exhaustive guidance). —WFC— 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Can you imagine how farcical it would be to have reported the death of a singer with one successful record to her name and then reject this major star spanning several decades? Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support as an undeniable legend, had a huge role in her era of Popular Music, was an icon to a generation of young women, helped break racial boundaries. Her most popular song is certainly one of the most recognizable songs of that genre and era and is used extensively by the media. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support great singer ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment only 1-line on her death, can we get more. reaction perhas?Lihaas (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...?Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this isn't updated. -- tariqabjotu 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction added. This should be good to go now. —WFC— 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions? Of course many were depressive; why do you wait for reactions? One sentence about her death is totally acceptable... And those reactions were just empty phrases or repetitions of what was already stated... --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITN isn't a news ticker. Its primary purpose is to link to articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. As noted at Wikipedia:In the news#Updated content, "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." —David Levy 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you answered to my comment, but I agree that reactions to the death of a person are irrelevant and trivial.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood. I'm expressing disagreement.

You stated that "one sentence about her death is totally acceptable", and I'm pointing out that our criteria indicate otherwise. A one-sentence update is insufficient.

Depending on the sources, reactions to a person's death can be indicative of his/her notability and impact in life and/or the impact of his/her death. —David Levy 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 07:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama turns down Keystone XL Pipeline

 --Colipon+(Talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks good, I'm just missing the actual 2012 update. --Tone 15:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated. Colipon+(Talk) 15:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From the article, I see phase 1 and 2 are already online. If only phase 3 and 4 were rejected, the blurb and article should make this clear. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Absolutely massive news up here in Canada (who will now apparently be looking at China instead), and I suspect it is of some major interest in the United States as well. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose From where I'm sat, this appears to be something that few outside of North America had heard about, not being built. But even if the potential strategic significance overrides European ignorance, this looks more like political brinksmanship than a definitive cancellation. Obama's reason for rejecting it was being given a deadline (by Republicans) that he did not believe was sufficient to assess the impact of the project. —WFC— 07:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of this nomination was to showcase the article. Not everything in ITN has to be 'big news' if the article is in good shape and encyclopedic. Colipon+(Talk) 17:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly recognise the quality of the article, but that alone doesn't override the need for the story to be of some significance. As I outline above, this boils down to a domestic political argument: the pipeline is far from dead in the water. —WFC— 05:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is of no interest or notability beyond a small column deep in a slow news day. I can't understand the thinking behind such a parochial nomination doktorb _words^deeds 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The president stop the first step of something is not a news, the president build something yes is; "Today the president not nuke anybody" is not a news, anyway I am a foreigner and know nothing about it--Feroang (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Anonymous Attacks / Megaupload shutdown

 --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous takes down quite a large number of sites with DDos attacks in response to Megaupload/Megavideo shutdown by FBI. The sites include MPAA, FBI, EMI and many others. This is one of the biggest coordinated attacks ever and is becoming major news... keep an eye out. -- Ashish-g55 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose some of the sites weren't even down, they just loaded slowly; although they claim it to be the biggest set of attacks yet, they do this practically every other weekend. Spencer^T♦C 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Source? Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here, and i know they do this often. i wouldnt have posted this if i didnt think that these are indeed one of the biggest attacks. just the shutdown of all Mega sites is a fairly big news -- Ashish-g55 02:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - While the retaliation is not so much of a big deal, the takedown of Megaupload is very much so. It has even greater ramifications than closing down Piratebay since Megaupload was considered a legitimate filesharing website. This is not news to be sneezed at.--WaltCip (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support MU shutdown news, oppose attacks news: The shutdown of MU is quite notable, since MU was a significant "file sharing" website, and that this action by the feds took a lot of people by surprise, it's currently hot news all over the internet. As for these "Anonymous" attacks, they really aren't that significant, because when isn't there some site being DDoSed by people claiming to be Anonymous? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support shutdown, oppose attacks. The shutdown is notable, and we posted The Pirate Bay. One of the top news stories, while the attacks were secondary coverage that was a footnote of what happened. Secret ^account 06:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support shutdown news, oppose attacks, I added the ITN box and a blurb. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above but I don't think any file-sharing websites/hosts such as MegaUpload can (now) be considered legitimate for the obvious reason that most of the content isn't checked or filter, torrents were probably once legitimate too. Will be very interested in hearing the results of this case, it could be a revolutionary trial that may affect the future of the internet. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Megaupload seizure story, this represents a pathetic attempt by the "government" to pacify Hollywood/RIAA after their humiliating defeat over SOPA/PIPA on Wednesday. Speciate (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Mega-Upload story is real, real big. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this "support" isn't included in the decision making process. These arrests took months of planning and co-operation with international governments. This had absolutely nothing to do with the "SOPA blackout". --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose I would drop the strong if the comment from "anonymous" is dropped from the lead. How the hell does a group called "anonymous" issue an official statement? Seriously. The oppose still stands, it's just a shut down warez site, happens all the time. RIP megaupload, mininova, torrentspy, et al. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt just some warez site. It was meant to be legal and FBI took them down without SOPA a day after protests. Attacks may not be newsworthy but at the time they did seem big and if they keep happening they might just be. -- Ashish-g55 13:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Script kiddies with a botnet isn't news, ever. As for the arrests, "SOPA" wasn't needed. The authorities in New Zealand legally arrested Kim and the others based on a request by the DOJ. There will be an extradition hearing before they're sent to the United States. The FBI has no authority in NZ, so for the arrests to be made, the DOJ and State must have made a pretty compelling argument that these individuals were deliberately and intentionally facilitating online piracy. The basis of this nomination is that it's somehow news that some international criminals were arrests by the mechanism of international law enforcement, and that simply isn't the case. Not news. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous with an uppercase A. It's a group of hacktivists, not random people. Beyond495 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they have an official spokesperson who took credit for attacking websites with a DDoS net? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Support posting the MU shutdown - that is major news; the attacks unless reported widely may be ignored for now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support significant in light of the SOPA protest. Beyond495 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this had absolutely nothing to do with the SOPA protest right? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see consensus enough that I'm comfortable posting the shutdown, but what blurb should I use? Suggestions? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because the blurb should also acknowledge the retaliatory action. While Megaupload is pretty big, such closures are relatively routine. The retaliation was the amplifying factor that made the media take more than a passing notice. —WFC— 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please support conditionally then instead of opposing... -- Ashish-g55 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support conditionally; I oppose the Megaupload story alone as routine by itself, but consider the retaliation to take the entire event over the threshold. Please stop badgering every opposer. —WFC— 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I havent badgered anyone... considering i nominated the item i have every right to refute opposes. And your comment sounds like you support if both were posted which you restated again. So i dont see how you dont support conditionally. -- Ashish-g55 17:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support without mention of "retaliatory action". The "retaliation" did not come from Megaupload, but rather a few kids with botnets. You may or may not feel that their action is commendable, but I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone with a little bit of common sense that this is far from significant enough to be posted on ITN. JimSukwutput 20:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree, but you're entitled to your view. I'm responding to protest the implication that there might be a correlation between those who consider the action notable and those that condone it. I would not accept that on the street and I do not accept it here. I'm minded to be more vociferous in my condemnation, but appreciate the possibility that may not have been your intended meaning. —WFC— 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support shutdown, as Megaupload was a huge site which was actually legitimate, and the imminent legal battle is, according to several sources, set to be one of the biggest copyright infringement cases of all time. --Dorsal Axe 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support...ish... because usually I would send Anonymous nominations in the fire of FAIL. This time, though, we have a framing narractive and a context, both of which give this nomination the kudos required for front page inclusion. In ordinary circumstance this would not be trusted with a watch match: this time however, I think we are justified in awarding it ITN status.
• Support. Megaupload was a pretty big international website, but this event is also significant in the history of internet censorship in the United States. To WFC's objection, I saw many stories that did not mention the retaliatory action at all. Shrigley (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share a couple? —WFC— 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to the Megaupload part because it could end up having major reprecussions to copyright law. Strong oppose to mentioning Anonymous since all they accomplished was a few hours of overloading a website's servers. --PlasmaTwa2 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only real reason to give attention to Anonymous attacks is that they could be used by SOPA lobbyists and end up doing more harm than good. Even though the damage done to sites was minimal but the sites involved were of very high profile. Now is that good enough for ITN... maybe. But looking at comments above i would say consensus is towards posting MU shutdown only. -- Ashish-g55 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for anonymous retaliation - One of their many retaliation attacks against governments is not notable nor significant. Since their establishment, they have taken down dozens of government websites and apparently all their attacks had a message behind it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Anonymous always respected Wikipedia and their sister projects because (and the SOPA blackout was an indicator), Wikipedia always been an example of a free Intenet. Other than a rouge hacker or two whom is more personal than political, I don't ever recall an severe hacking of the entire project. It has no substance. Secret ^account 04:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I opposed anonymous' retaliation, I opposed the posting of the retaliation on ITN. Despite our subtle alliance, there have been several instances where they did attack a few of our articles but I guess that's the problem with an organisation with no leader. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 07:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Megaupload shutdown. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the numbers here, to post one side's achievements and not the other's looks like US bias, because it is not reflective of overall coverage of the story. Google is of course not a definitive source, but compare [15] with [16]. —WFC— 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two actions are hardly comparable, and I don't see how omitting one constitutes bias. -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other side is far easier to see for non-Americans. I happen to agree with the DoJ's action, but that does not make the post neutral. Starting from a blank canvass, this is one country imposing its law on a foreign entity, and opponents of that decision taking reciprocal action. Media from uninvolved locations gave balanced weight to both actions, and we should do likewise. —WFC— 05:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not interested in hearing points where the primary argument is "Well, because you're American, you don't understand." With your opening sentence as "The other side is far easier to see for non-Americans", you have lost all hope that I will consider your request. Go tell someone who cares. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record, I regard the above as an inaccurate charactisation of racism, and would ask that another user look at the substance of what I have said in previous posts. In the interests of preventing further escalation, I will make no further comment for 24 hours. —WFC— 07:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle skier Sarah Burke dies

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A sportsperson dying effectively in competition is big news. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To help the blurb (space permitting), it is also worth noting that she was a pioneer of her sport, helped get it into the Olympics, and was a medal favourite for Sochi. Resolute 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at least in Toronto it has been in the news almost constantly over the past week and a half, so there is certainly some significance here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tragic, but far from being notable. Death of an active sportsperson in freestyle skiing with decent regard and conspicuous silence outside the sport does not suffice inclusion. Freestyle skiing is a sport with wide variety of disciples, but superpipe is even not among the most popular in broader terms. In addition, the news was announced as a secondary sports news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. @ Kiril: "Death of an active sportsperson in freestyle skiing with decent regard and conspicuous silence outside the sport does not suffice inclusion." Why doesn't it? An Olympic athlete killed in a sports-related accident is not notable? What if she died from some rare event, like lightening or something? Very notable individual killed at a very early age supported by wide-spread international coverage. Seems to meet the threshold for inclusion. And considering the slow week it has been outside of the SOPA drama this would appear to be a solid posting. Wikifan^{Be nice} 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's not so notable. It's true that she did a lot for the fast-growing popularity of the sport and the death came suddenly, but the notability is limited to a sports circle that is hardly popular among the other sports. On the other hand we used to be strict regarding the deaths of sportspeople in the past and other notable sportspeople in more popular sports, such like Kamila Skolimowska and Pavel Karelin were not included, so I don't see a reason why to do it right now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who? (Simply making the point that I have heard of Burke, but not the others. Popularity of sports is obviously a matter of perspective.) Also, unlike the others, Burke's death came from competing. The others, while tragic, didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That's what I mean. It's only a matter of perspective, as everybody has own opinion. For me her death is not something very notable that meets the threshold and I provided my opinion for that, while for others it is and they provided their opinions as well. I don't accuse anybody for being right or not.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--four time X Games winner and freestyle world champion at one point, certainly one of the major figures in her field. C628 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, death meets interest level; she was young, she died practicing her sport, she was a pioneer. Also, slow news day. Speciate (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• She was considered to be a favorite to medal in the next Winter Games, and she was being compared to Shaun White, so the notability is there. Support Secret ^account 06:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think the "X-games" is relevant, but there is a WP:RS which says she lobbied the IOC to have her sport included in the 2014 winter games, which gives her some notability in the field. I have some concerns about the article as well, comments like "in which she showcased her skills by sliding huge rainbow rails" need fixing. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. At the time of her death there were only 3 other wikipedia-languages with articles on her, and even the English one was very short. This tells me that she wasn't very famous at all. --Shanes (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the article can be improved to a state where her death isn't occupying 1/3 of the page. From what I've seen on Canadian media it's clear that she had a significant effect on the sport. Plus her death was totally unexpected. Colipon+(Talk) 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per HiLo and SecretAccount. Beyond495 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kiril. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kiril. At that young age, I think very few people would truly be significant enough to merit a post on ITN. We really don't post that many deaths around here, mostly only the kind of people that'd be significant enough to appear in the history books. JimSukwutput 20:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd reckon that Rauf Denktaş will one day 'appear in the history books'? Colipon+(Talk) 21:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - i just dont find it significant enough for mention on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Despite it being an Olympic sport, it is like BMX racing, still not considered to be in the mainstream, not to the level of ice skating or ice hockey, therefore classifying it as a minority sport. Donnie Park (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kiril. Recent deaths material. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Somebody nobody has heard of dies doing a minority interest sport - this is not front page material beyond a specialist or specific interest magazine. Not for Wikipedia's front page doktorb _words^deeds 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]