UN report on Israeli Settlers

Nominator's comments: Blurb needs to be very carefully worded if this does get posted, I've tried to keep it brief and neutral EdwardLane (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean oppose. Is this really new news? The legality of the settlements has always been one of the primary disputes; now we just have some in the UN saying that(and I don't think the UN has ever held the opposing view). This almost certainly will not change anything on the ground there or Israeli policy. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support it's a report, not a binding resolution, but it does decree that the Israeli settlements are blatantly illegal. The fact that everyone knows this, and that Isreal has ignored previous resolutions doesn't detract from the significance here. A binding security council resolution declaring Israel in violation of article 49 and calling on the government to withdraw would be an easy support. Israel would still ignore it though. --IP98 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Some will find this startling, some won't, but it is a big international story In the News. Jusdafax 15:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Someone opines on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute" is hardly special. Especially when it comes from a political agenda-driven body such as the UN Human Rights Council. Resolute 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean oppose as per 331dot. There isn't much new encyclopeadic content as a result of this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I disagree with Resolute's characterisation of the UNHRC, but I agree with the conclusion: this is still just 'a committee gives a non-binding opinion'. Not really news. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose How many divisions does the Pope have? μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does that mean? --IP98 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

q:Joseph Stalin --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This doesn't reflect a change in anybody's position, and it's unlikely to affect the facts on the ground. As linked in Israeli settlement, the UN Security Council took a similar position as far back as 1980. [3] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Patty Andrews dies

Nominator's comments: Patty was the lead singer and is the last survivor of a very successful group, known for "Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" --SusanLesch (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are several unreferenced sections in the article, such as The_Andrews_Sisters#Musical_innovators, The_Andrews_Sisters#Many_styles, and The_Andrews_Sisters#Setting_records, and additionally several other sections could use some more references, such as paragraphs in The_Andrews_Sisters#Career, The_Andrews_Sisters#Comeback, and The_Andrews_Sisters#Retirement_and_deaths. The article has sufficient prose detailing Andrews' life and career. Spencer^T♦C 05:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Spencer. It's a tall order but I will try. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing off here. Sorry I didn't do better, Spencer. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; you did a lot of great work on the article. Thank you for helping make it Main Page ready! Spencer^T♦C 04:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD, provided the article is fixed. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Sure - I don't doubt their notability, but after the savage beating we gave the Pham Duy nom further down the page...--WaltCip (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of people who think Vietnam is insignificant have given it a beating. It looks well-supported, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support the article does a very good job of covering how they pass ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Similarly unsure. As a group the Andrews Sisters are notable, but it's difficult to say whether this notability filters down to the individual members. Currently the death update for Patty Andrews is a single sentence. One good way I've found of assessing notability is to see if an ITN-quota update in relation to the individual's death reads well in the article, or if it clearly looks overdone. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what Patty complained about according to The New York Times, "Every time we got an award, it was just one award for the three of us.” -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Notable, and in the news. A well-known musical figure for well over a half century. Jusdafax 15:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Iconic 40's figure with great influence on history of pop music. Once this is updated let's put both this and Pham Duy up. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. --Jayron32 18:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull immediately I cannot understand how this can be posted with no extant article on the topic, which implies that there is a reduced or no notability at all. Note that there are many similar cases throughout history with separate articles (e.g. Brother Grimm, Brontë family, etc.). Furthermore, the number of articles on the English Wikipedia is sufficient to state that there must be an article on a topic to be featured on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The people you mentioned are noted for their individual contributions; the Bronte family never wrote books together, but books individually. Others, like the Andrews Sisters do have combined articles because they are notable for what they did together. See the Wright brothers: it's not like we wouldn't post them because they don't have individual articles (assuming they died recently). Spencer^T♦C 18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilf and Petrov also wrote a book together, but have separate articles.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which are stubs that could potentially be merged to the central article. The point is that there are examples of both cases throughout Wikipedia, and I don't believe that removal from RD should be dependent on the existence of individual articles. Spencer^T♦C 06:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely the removal should depend on the existence of article, but it should always draw a line of sufficiency on something. I opine that there is some notability beyond Patty Andrews, but it really strikes me that there is no single article about her.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in '67 the vote was oppose, since Maxene and Patty were still touring with a replacement for Laverne. In 1995 the vote was wait since editors didn't want two postings in a row. Well, last week the time finally came. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean satellite launch

 --Hektor ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when updated. First orbital launch by any country is ITNR. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose blurb, but strongly support inclusion. The launch is significant, however whether it makes South Korea the "eleventh country to perform an orbital launch" is debatable because the rocket they used is mostly Russian. I would strongly advocate a more neutral blurb. I have added a proposed alternative to the template: "South Korea conducts the first successful launch of the Naro-1 rocket, placing the STSAT-2C satellite into orbit." --W. D. Graham 11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support concept of posting, but blurb should clarify that it was the first launch from their own territory, as they have put satellites into orbit using other nations' rockets previously. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support alt blurb. But if we can post SK getting a half Russian rocket up after the 3rd attempt, we can definately post Irans launch. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - SK already has a space programme - this is just a change of launch location and vehicle. And the original blurb is rather telling: being the eleventh country to attain a particular distinction isn't terribly notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "change of launch location and vehicle" is the whole point. They can now do it themselves instead of paying other nations to do it. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb. Event is listed on WP:ITN/R. NickSt (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the original discussion for this archived, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to question this type of story's presence on ITN/R, but until it is removed from there this story can still go up assuming the quality is OK. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support we post more than 4 golf stories every year. Posting the 11th country to reach this status is waay rarer than the golf postings. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me other stuff exists? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There must be 1000 incorrect uses of other stuff exists links for every one time it's used correctly. Ryan Vesey 00:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: First orbital launch of a country is clearly significant. Ryan Vesey 00:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Naro-1#Third_flight still needs updating. The first line says "Plans for a third flight are underway" and the vast majority of the section details delays to the third flight. Spencer^T♦C 05:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant, important, ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 05:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to post. Just agree on the blurb. For me, either is ok. --Tone 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alternative blurb, though the bold link should probably be on the Naro-1 article. Modest Genius ^talk 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Naro-1#Third_flight still talks of the launch in the future tense. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, not sure how I missed that. Modest Genius ^talk 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan plane crash

 --Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending update I would say most commercial flight plane-crashes are significant enough due to their nature, so I would say this should be posted. What's going on with plane crashes in Kazakhstan? That's the second one in 2 months, and at least the third in the last few years or so. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, recent death toll is given as 20 in the statement of the airline operated the flight. So blub should be modified.Egeymi (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could have done that yourself by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I couldn't. From now on, I will. Thanks.Egeymi (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as the article gets extended. This is a moderately significant commercial plane crash, and while I agree that it's striking there have been so many in Kz lately, they aren't so plentiful that they can be treated as routine. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think a plane crash is intrinsically notable enough. This one had a relatively low death toll; news coverage seems very much below what we'd expect for an ITN item.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support- I agree with Anc516's general assessment that commercial plane crashes are significant. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. While tragic, I don't feel the death toll is high enough to post this, unless there is some aggravating factor (like the dead being all children, or the crash was due to a hijacking/terrorist act). 331dot (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Commercial plane crashes are notable. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We don't post bus crashes even if they have more than 20 victims. Unless something makes this crash interesting I don't see the point in posting it. Thue (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose This is a borderline case, but unless there is no other notable factor it fall on the side of not posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Open Results

Why have these not yet been posted? Ksnow (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

The nomination and related comments are located at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_2013_Australian_Open. Spencer^T♦C 05:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mali: Destruction of Ahmed Baba Institute

Nominator's comments: An update on the conflict in Mali, which seems to be reaching a decisive point. Also the loss of the institute, and the ancient manuscripts within, is of encyclopaedic importance. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in general, though I would just have a blurb that states that a joint force has captured Timbuktu, and leave the aftermath to the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A lot of historical scrolls and manuscripts were destroyed in the burning. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the blurb? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite agree, should definitely be included in the blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant and important news item. Blurb could use a tweak. Loss of manuscripts, if confirmed, is major. Jusdafax 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until someone bothers with a five sentence update for at least one of the articles. Hint. Hint. Otherwise this will be three days old if it's ever posted. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Timbuktu Manuscripts might be the more pertinent article. By the nature of the fact this happened in Timbuktu, a part of the world synonymous with being remote, it may take a little time for reliable news sources to appear. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for notability. I agree with Luke that the article to be linked should be Timbuktu Manuscripts. The Ahmed Baba Institute is (was) a comparatively uninteresting modern building. The invaluable heritage is made up of the manuscripts. Currently there is an update of two sentences - a bit feeble. --RJFF (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update reports seem to be mixed on what has actually happened to the manuscripts/libraries.[4] As we definately do not wish to be later discovered to be wrong on ITN we should probably refrain from posting a story on the manuscripts now. The general status of the war however could be an item. LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be willing to post this based on the support for the notability of the event, however none of the potential target articles has a sufficient update. If someone could do so, we could get this up on the main page. --Jayron32 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe a Mali sticky? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I'm not sure how perpetual the conflict will eventually be and if there are articles constantly being updated. Also, I'm not sure how feasible 2 stickies are, so we'd also need to decide if the Syria sticky still should be there or not. Spencer^T♦C 01:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Queen Beatrix abdicates

Nominator's comments: End of the reign of the queen. New King William IV of the Netherlands --Hektor (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait - This is still speculation at the moment. Wait for the evening to see if this is what she actually announces. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) (this comment is now out-of-date)[reply]
• Wait - This appears just to be a rumour so far. Obviously support if the announcement is an abdication.(see below) Do not assume that the new king, if there is one, will use his given name as a regnal name. It's likely, but not certain. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok we wait. Please note however that the Dutch Prime Minister will have a television address to the Nation right after the Queen's so this speech by the Queen is probably about a most unusual matter. Hektor (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the speculation is probably correct. Abdication is something a family tradition with the Dutch royal family. But I wished to warn against pre-announcing anything ourselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thing that might be worth discussing now: what if she announces her abdication at a future date? Would we post now or wait until the official changeover? I'd be inclined to do the former (and maybe post again at the changeover if it's weeks or months away). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to wait until the actual abdication date if it's not in the next few days. Given how rarely heads of state change in most monarchies, I expect we'll be posting any subsequent coronation as well, and three announcements for one event is probably overkill. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal would be to have one posting for the abdication announcement (i.e. now), and one posting for the coronation or oath of the new King. The first posting would highlight the former Queen, and the second one the new King. Hektor (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hektor has a good idea here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hektor's plan. Particularly because Commons has several great photos. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hektor's plan. People will be looking for the news now. We can run hers as the featured article on April 30. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the brief blurb highlighting the queen, and second blurb in April. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, neural. Was just watching the broadcast, indeed abdicating. Neural on posting or not. Abdication will be Queen's Day, April 30th. Fgf10 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Hektor's reasoning. Change of head of state is clearly a highly significant event. I also support Medeis' excellent suggestion of Queen Beatrix as FA on Queen's Day, rather than repeating the ITN item then. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support' per Hektor. Monarchs don't abdicate on a daily basis, so the announcement is ITN worthy. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Without regard to consensus to post, the update, as of now, is a bit light. Could someone expand this before it gets posted? There's only 1 sentence of text in the "Abdication" section. Surely there's some commentary that can be cited or other reactions to the announcement to beef this up to the 5 sentences necessary? What about the rationale for her abdication? Something should be added to bring this up to minimum standards before we post it. --Jayron32 19:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support my alt blurb. Our (unfortunate) habit of using the historic present would otherwise imply that she has now stepped down. I suspect Charles will be propping up copies of the Dutch papers against his mother's cereal bowl in the morning. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I've updated the section a bit with some info from my usual suite of major news outlets. It looks like most are running the same facts (probably using the same wire source), there's not been enough time for 'reaction' stories to be written. Someone who can read Dutch news could probably add more, but I think, with Kevin's altblurb, it's sufficient to go now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Supportsince it is a significant event as argued above.Egeymi (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Any preference on images? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No preference but quickly these two look good: File:Lula e Beatrix.jpg and File:Beatrix05.jpg. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lady in the red hat. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - A minor thing, really, but should "30 April" be changed to "April 30"? That would make the date format consistent with the formatting in the OTD section. How does date formatting/ENGVAR usually work on the main page, anyways? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has since been changed to "end of April", which of course is a better idea. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If blurb is to have a second link, it would make more sense for it to be to Monarchy of the Netherlands than to the country article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iran sends monkey to space

Nominator's comments: Notable moment in Iran's space program, also marks the first safe return of a primate since 1993 (see here) --Droodkin (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the addition of the topic, we've got work to do. First, wouldn't the launch be notable so an article should be created on it? If so, we should create that and use it in the blurb. I suppose sends a monkey to space would be the best option, but that article needs a lot of work. My impression from the article was that they are launching the same rocket like, which seems unlikely. Ryan Vesey 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if there is enough new information entering the encylopedia as a result of this news story to merit an ITN item. Reading the news stories apparentely it's a charismatic move, but of little technical significance. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On cosideration oppose. While it may be the first Iranian monkey, gloabally speaking, sending a monkey into space isn't that new or significant, and this'll be just a snippet in the Animals in space article (if that). Technically speaking, while charismatic, this doesn't represent is not a particuarly significant technical development for the Iranian space agency, and thus the update to Iranian Space Agency is going to be slender (currently it stands at two sentences). All-in-all there has not been a sizeable enoiugh update to the content of the encylopedia as a result of this news story to merit an ITN posting. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update? I see it phrased in future tense under "animals in space", unless there is a different section I should be looking at? --IP98 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Hahahahaha, for the love of all things holy underneath the eyes of God, we can't be serious? Really? This is not for the front page of Wikipedia, never mind actual newspapers. Simply not serious, important, notable, or credible a story. Utterly laughable that it's been suggested here, beyond a joke. Of course I oppose this - I'd be a clown wearing high-heels if I didn't oppose. doktorb _words^deeds 16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual argument, or just facile mockery? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an argument. This is a comical novelty story of no importance. I can't begin to believe why we're even considering it. ITN is not here to publicise these kinds of self-generated "punchlines", (see our rightful objection to Occupy). ITN is not a news aggregator. It's certainly not Buzzfeed. This must be the best laugh I've had all year doktorb _words^deeds 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. I don't support this posting myself. But by opposing it with a witty set of ripostes instead of a measured argument, you make it less likely that the admin will take your point seriously. Even a much wittier reply than yours still comes off as 'I don't like it' if there isn't some useful substance there. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why my initial reason would be considered invalid. We consider whether stories are serious, important, notable or credible. This story is not serious, important, notable or credible. If I have to find whichever hundred or so policies are linked to those four things, I'd happily source them doktorb _words^deeds 17:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just go check to see if "monkeys in space" is listed at ITN/R, in which case there's no argument.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all about your personal bugbear. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor yours. Stop bludgeoning me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Calling this valid nomination "not serious" or "credible" is a bit of a stretch, but I would question how significant a milestone it is. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems like a significant, newsworthy development. The update looks sufficient. --Jayron32 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant. definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - the "sufficient" update to the article looks like two short sentences, is that a "sufficient" update? Also, do we actually have independent evidence that this monkey did actually return alive and wasn't burnt to a crisp on re-entry or do we just take Iran's word for it, since clearly they wouldn't make anything like a successful "manned" space voyage up, would they? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. Are the more zealous types of ITN now suggesting we agree on everything which is reported by dubious regimes? doktorb _words^deeds 17:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Despite a little sparring with Doktorbuk and Rambling Man upthread, I'm actually dead against this nomination. Sending helpless research animals into space is not the cutting edge of technology these days, and the fact that it's Iran that's done it, on the gazillionth attempt, doesn't seem to add a great deal to the significance. While national firsts can be significant, they aren't intrinsically so. Sending people into space (and getting them back alive) is a rather more significant achievement, and we should perhaps reserve national (and corporate) milestone announcements for such events. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raises glass to Alex, tips hat and staggers off into the sunset... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [stands up] I fully align myself to the statement made by the honourable gentlemen [takes seat] doktorb _words^deeds 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly sorry for having been snippy. No-one dies if we mess up here. I should take myself less seriously. Thank you both for being good-humoured. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Alex. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it's a successful return, which is the real achievement. If it had been a one-way trip I would oppose. --IP98 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, you have independent verification of the "successful return" right? Not just the Iranian authorities saying it was a success? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, what? I didn't see the requirement that an get "independent verification". What does that even mean? --IP98 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We now believe what the Iranian authorities tell us as part of their propaganda machine? So if North Korea reported that they had done the same, you'd just accept it? What does that even mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not going to derail the thread debating with you on the authenticity of the statements of the government of Iran. Is there, or is there not, a requirement for stores to get "independent verification"? The story has been reported in the Guardian and Al-Jazeera. It's a simple yes or no. Does the requirement exist? Yes or no. Kindly answer with a simple yes or no. --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No requirement, but the blurb would therefore have to be changed to "...is claimed to have successfully sent...", because that's what the sources say. You could -- as Rambling Man here is doing -- therefore argue that the notability rests entirely on whether or not it actually did happen, which would require independent verification. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The primate travelled in a Pishgam rocket, which reached an altitude of some 120km. I wonder what this some means. There is no clear boundary between Earth's atmosphere and space. Kármán line lies at 100km, but according to newer measurements boundary is at 118 km, and according to NASA at 122km. So, correct blurb would be Iran sends monkey to border of Space or Iran sends monkey to Thermosphere.--В и к и T 22:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Politics aside this has a lot of significance, it is a major achievement that only five countries prior have achieved (Soviet Union, the United States, France, China and Japan). From a geopolitical point of view this is could quite well have major implications. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per LightGreenApple and also because it would make the ITN box a little less dour. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• opposePretty sure they simpsons already did it. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per LightGreenApple. News sources are just that, sources, and this is In the News. I also agree with those noting that the recovery is significant. Jusdafax 06:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, more oppose Poopy Joe: We will always remember. This is one of those "Oh, that's cool" stories, but not really all that significant enough unless it was the first time an animal other than a dog has been in space, so if I'm wrong or if he did some kind of dance or significant scientific achievement while up there, I may switch to support. This would be a nice DYK hook. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- More 'cool news' than worthy of ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hoax Shame we didn't post this before the hoax was discovered, the correction would have been interesting.
• Comment interesting that those who thought independent verification was unnecessary aren't here now to discuss this....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Stanley Karnow

 DHN (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Notable reporter, author and Pulitzer Prize-winner. Even made Nixon's enemies list. Jusdafax 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The article is a bit sparse, but as a subject matter is fine for RD. --Jayron32 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no evidence in article body that he passes ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. He (or his works) had won multiple awards in a lengthy career. Clearly notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Did receive pulitzer for book but no other accolades, evince was at top of field, best seller... μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  His work (the PBS documentary) won several awards, including several Emmys, a Peabody, and some other awards. DHN (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he was listed as a consultant for the documentary, not its writer or creator. Frankly, this and Pham Duy should be posted, since each is more notable than the blank space. Especially Duy's nomination where his primacy in VN music is undenied. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was never part of the RD proposition that the threshold be lowered, nor that the RD list need be always displayed or filled. Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your knickers in a bunch, there is no such thing as absolute notability--it has always been a matter of the relevant relative application of the standards. If the standards were absolute the calculation would be a mechanical formula, no editors needed. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't reply with civility, Wikipedia is not the place for you. 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I evidently missed with my fourth stab at the tilde key last night, (Kevin McE)

• Support He won the Pulitzer Prize. If that doesn't meet DC #2, I don't know what does. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a lot of Pulitzer prizes given out every year, far more than (for instance) Nobel Prizes, and they're only for work done in the United States. Making no comment on this particular individual, a Pulitzer prize does not, by itself, satisfy DC #2. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unready I have changed my vote to support, but this article is not updated by five lines of prose, or even two. It won't be posted, regardless of support, if it's not updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 World Men's Handball Championship

Nominator's comments: This is listed as ITN/R. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will be working on the update of the final in the following hours.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only niche interest and niche impact. Not at all "in the news" in any major website I visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Major team handball tournament. Listed on WP:ITN/R. NickSt (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many listings on ITN/R are clearly becoming less and less relevant. This is simply not in the news anywhere I visit, can you point me to major news outlets covering this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please: (AP via Washington Post) (Xinhua) (Ahram Online) (Marca) (Getty Images) and so on. NickSt (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the reasons given by Rambling Man. In addition, I will start a new section over on ITN/R to consider the removal of handball from ITNR doktorb _words^deeds 18:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support re: notability. Almost all sport, and indeed most human activity (apart from death and taxes), is "niche" by some standard or other. I like that ITN occasionally links to mid-level "niche" encyclopaedia articles, as long as they're in good shape and we're not being ridiculous with the obscurity. Handball isn't that obscure - not that popular in the English-speaking world, but has a sizeable following in Central Europe and Scandinavia. Also an Olympic sport and this is the premier non-Olympic title in the sport. Article is lacking in prose at the moment however. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, whether an individual editor "likes" something or not is entirely irrelevant. It's not "in the news", it's just ITN/R which clearly is not really on the money. Please, show me major news outlets covering this right now, i.e. show me where this is "in the news" for English Wikipedia readers to be interested in its inclusion in the ITN section of the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's one, pretty easy to find even with my limited German Der Spiegel. [6] As I said, Team Handball is really a Central-Eurpopean & Scandinavian thing, however one of our roles here is to attempt to compensate for the impact of language and cultural barriers. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I can see that, but it's like fifth level of Der Spiegel's website, not exactly prominent or "in the news", just being reported, just like Leigh Griffiths' shop-lifting accusations in Glasgow are being reported on the BBC website (and currently on the BBC news homepage....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I really don't know what to think as it's not "in the news". The Washington post ran an article, but it's just an AP distribution. The Express Tribune and global post (whatever those are) ran a Reuters copy. China Daily covered an earlier match, but not this one yet (that I can find). Deutsche Welle ran an article. Ryan Vesey 18:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite so. And "newsworthiness" aside, the article has virtually no prose at all, it's just a list of results and tables. We held off on posting the Brazil nightclub fire which killed a couple of hundred people because it only had a few sentences of prose. It had more than this article currently contains.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there should be no posting without some decent prose. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The whole notion of ITNR as a free pass is problematic, and if this were a major news item surely we wo(uld see three major references from at least two countries appended to the template of this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have just done that. Spencer^T♦C 20:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work, Spencer. I am still opposed if it amounts to bumping other news at this point, which strikes me as a good deal more notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While English-language news may not be featuring the handball championship as highly, Spanish-language and other international news does indeed feature it more prominently. (Searching "balonmano" gives results for Univision, Diario AS, and other mainstream international publications). Spencer^T♦C 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is "English Wikipedia" right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware that being an English-language encyclopedia precluded us from posting items of international interest. Spencer^T♦C 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that the fact we have to delve into minor pages on mainly minor foreign-language websites is indicative of the newsworthiness of this item to our English-reading audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Univision is in no way a "minor foreign-language website". The fact that this is not covered by English-language media is a reflection that handball isn't an American or Commonwealth cultural sport (like cricket) as well as an example of systemic bias. Spencer^T♦C 23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling Man, you do seem to be suggesting that this being the English Wikipedia should imply some kind of language-bias in our coverage, because I have no idea why else you'd bring it up. And it's really not necessary to respond to every single !voter and comment on a thread. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight and advice, I'll be sure to look into following it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-pan. I like it. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when it comes to international sports, it is less niche than NFL. Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not "in the news" is it? When Superbowl completes, despite the fact it's US-only, it really is in the news. Globally. Whether we like it or not. Unlike this minor sport and minor tournament, simply not in the news in the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Super Bowl concludes it's only "in the news" in the US media and very few others. We will see shortly if any prominent German, French, Russian, Spanish, or Italian medium informs about it. Your statement that handball is a niche sport with no coverage in the English-speaking world is worthless since most of the Russian, German, French, Spanish, and other-language media publish their news articles in English as well. Please don't tell me that the news must come from a medium based in a country where English is official language to be understood by an English speaker.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, so show me these major news outlets in English-language covering this event on the main sports page, or else it's not actually "in the news" is it? As for Superbowl being "in the US media and very few others", you know that's a complete lie, so you undermine your entire statement with that alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assume good faith. Accusing people of lying is inappropriate and unhelpful. You are not going to get anywhere be adopting a confrontational and aggressive attitude. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know for a fact that Kiril knows that the Superbowl is covered by most of the globe. Thanks for your advice though, I'll keep it in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Other news sources have never been a good source for significance. Otherwise we would have entertainment news on ITN the whole time. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you want something that isn't in the news to be in our "in the news" section? Just goes to show how much work this section of the main page needs.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is updated with sufficient amount of prose to document the final. For those, especially The Rambling Man, complaining that this is a niche sport with no coverage anywhere, we have the ITN/R where you can demand its removal from the list and contest its ITN worthiness with all the arguments you have. There is simply no need to see someone persistently uttering the same argument to everyone who supports this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN/R is a joke, as is demonstrated time and time again. We can't rely on those lazy "supports per ITN/R" any more. I'm not demanding its removal from ITN, I'm suggesting it's not worth being on ITN for any good reason, neither for some arbitrary ruling (ITN/R) nor its quality. No-one has adequately demonstrated that this is actually "in the news" apart from a few niche foreign-language websites. It's not suitable for English Wikipedia's main page by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I don't like it" is not a valid argument for ignoring policy, as you should know. If you don't like the policy that an ITR/R event automatically meets the notability criterion, then start a discussion at ITN/R about whether it should be changed. Judging by the number of people who complain about it here, if you actually did something about it at ITN/R you might well succeed. Neljack (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you chose to visit ITN/R you'd see that I've already suggested it (i.e. ITN/R) should be removed entirely. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not only is it ITN/R, I think it clearly meets the notability criterion in any case. Handball is a major sport; just because it isn't where most editors live, that doesn't mean we should ignore that. Neljack (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A major sport which is "not in the news" anywhere. Uh huh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just untrue: it is in the news. Those of us who support the nomination have pointed you to various stories, but you dismiss them all seemingly because of your rather idiosyncratic views on which news sources count. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean really "in the news". Look above, I gave an example of a Scottish footballer who is "in the news" on the BBC homepage for shoplifting. Neither you nor anyone else here has really provided any evidence of this being covered in any real sense outside minor pages on minor websites. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready The discussion with the comments and votes appears to incline towards posting. Given the update we have, it's time for marking it ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty lame to try marking your own nomination as "ready". Let someone else determine that given it's abundantly clear there's no reason for something that's "not in the news" to be listed as being "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My understanding is that team handball is fairly popular in much of continental Europe--generally about a second, third or forth most popular team sport. That seems comparable to a sport like rugby (though I suppose Rugby is in fact the most popular sport in a handful of countries). I certainly think this should be the only time we feature handball. It certainly is true that among English speakers handball is a not viewed as spectator sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ITNR discussion May I point editors to the ITN/R inclusion discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Proposal_-_Remove_Handball doktorb _words^deeds 21:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The update is sufficient and this is on ITN/R. If there is an issue with this event's listing there, get it removed from there first. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm trying, I'm trying.... doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Australian Open

Nominator's comments: Standard ITN/R item. Despite Azarenka's win happening just minutes ago, the basic information has already been added to the relevant articles by keen editors. Just need the prose updates, which is usually quotes from post-match interviews etc. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITN/R. I also suggest to use the precedent and post the conclusion of the women's tournament immediately, and only update the blurb with the conclusion of the men's tournament tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we need a prose update in there somewhere? --Jayron32 04:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. The best place is Day-by-Day summary here, since all the previous days have prose summaries. Spencer^T♦C 07:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wooh - who's gone crazy with the flag icons? Are all those needed in every section? And the schedule of play bare URLs. Are those needed too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Just added the men's result to the blurb and moved this section to the 27 January listings. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Major tennis tournament. Listed on WP:ITN/R. NickSt (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose clearly internationally significant and newsworthy but as Lugnuts notes, the article needs some really serious work. Someone's gone ape with flag icons and bold text. We shouldn't simply "support" items because they're listed in "ITN/R". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? Nothing is more useful that a row of mindless "support, notable"'s on an ITN/R article, from people who haven't even looked at the article state! </sarcasm> Thue (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, once cleaned up a little. Also, I believe Djokovic is the first man in the Open Era to threepeat. That might be worth a mention in the blurb. Resolute 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now once the article has been cleaned up as per Lugnuts and Rambling Man also someone needs to read up on WP:OVERLINK, then come back and I will support, I also agree with Resolute with a change to the blurb. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I've added prose for all the finals played on the Saturday and Sunday. Personally I don't think the overlink banner is needed or article is too linked to preclude posting. There's a lot of linking to players' articles, but that's pretty unavoidable given the nature of the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are (by my rough count) a little more than about 1,600 wikilinks, including about 24 to Novak Djokovic and Li Na, 20 to Victoria Azarenka and 15 to Sloane Stephens this is not counting the links from the 1,046 flags on the page. LightGreenApple _{talk to me}

That sounds worse that it is in practice. Most of that is names in tables, which looks perfectly fine - indeed if "only first entries" were wikilinked the tables would look patchy and messy. Otherwise players are linked the first time they are mentioned in each day's section, which is unusual but suited to the way people are likely to read the article, by jumping down to the day they are interested in rather than reading from start to finish. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does sound worse than it is, try reading the prose on any of the days and you eyes get distracted by all the blue links, if it is going to be linked to from the main page it does need to have the duplicate links reduced, for example Novak Djokovic played 7 matches for an average of over 3 links per match. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess we remove all the wikilinks from the day-by-day prose. I'm afraid I'm off to work now, so I'll have to leave that to someone else. LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previewing changes for a section, I really think we make the article worse, not better, by removing these links. Can we get a third opinion on this please? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. Removed lots of excess prose links except in their first occurrence, but left the ones that appeared in separate tables/charts as suggested by WP:OVERLINK. Otherwise, the article is updated. Spencer^T♦C 05:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kiss nightclub fire

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (when the article is sufficiently expanded). This is eerily similar to The Station nightclub fire, but with a far higher death toll. I was unable to find a list of the deadliest nightclub fires worldwide, but it appears that few have claimed this many lives, particularly in recent years. —David Levy 13:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant loss of life. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A horrible, devastating event, and one which (so sadly) fits our criteria for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Terrible event. Agree with doktorb. --Droodkin (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when expanded There's about 4 lines of prose so far. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Mass casualty event. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major international media coverage. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Very tragic event. I have never heard about a deadlier disaster happening in a nightclub.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Highly significant death toll. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but strongly prefer original blurb (and article name): the name of the (former) nightclub is not to the forefront of the reporting. Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notability re: all above. Article meets minimum standards at the current time, best not to over-expand while story is still breaking. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thue (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Pham Duy

 DHN (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support I'd like to support but a) international coverage is currently lacking and b) the article is in fairly poor shape, several unreferenced paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the first (of many, I'm sure) English-language coverage of his death. Considering that the LA Times covered his son's death last month, I wouldn't be surprised if they cover his death on Monday. As for "international", so far we've had coverage from Voice of America, Radio France Internationale, BBC, and Radio Free Asia, admittedly all in Vietnamese, but I'm sure given some time they will trickle over to English. DHN (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's his obituary in the LA Times. DHN (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That's point b. The article still needs better referencing (point a) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to support. On second consideration there's no need to push for every paragraph to be referenced. This isn't DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those of us who are not familiar with the genre, which will be the vast majority of readers and editors, will need a lot more evidence before we could consider supporting. Writing 1000 songs that are short, forgettable and make no impact on anyone is not a great achievement. Has he won major recognition? Are his songs verifiably among the best selling of their genre? Are their multiple works that discuss his importance in the culture? Was there any official response to his works when they were de-banned in 2005? Can only oppose until we are given grounds to do anything else. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Admittedly he is not well-known outside of Vietnam, but within the field of Vietnamese music, he is a towering figure (alongside with Van Cao and Trinh Cong Son) in terms of influence and popularity. He is a household name throughout Vietnam. Within an hour of his death, virtually all major Vietnamese-language news sources had updated to put news of his death on their front page. DHN (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That's sadly not going to convince many about his importance (don't forget the squabbles when people they are familiar with come up...) I doubt if Chrisye's death had been in the past month an RD would have had support, and he may be of comparable standing (in Indonesia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  To give you an idea of his influence, consider this scholarly article written almost 10 years ago charting his career, and here's an article in the LA Times about 20 years ago profiling him. DHN (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All UK news sources will have given prominence to the death of Clive Dunn within hours of his death, but popularity is not the same as importance. Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. Much like Crisco 1492, I would like to support this, but I'm not convinced Vietnamese music is a broad enough field to post notable figures from. If it was music in general, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  He is not just an important figure in Vietnamese music, but an important figure in Vietnamese society, period. You can see this by looking at any Vietnamese-language news source now, almost 2 days after he died, it's still front-page news (they've moved on to people's reactions, tributes, and details of his funeral). DHN (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's from a news story from Ghana [16]: "he was was both a divisive and unifying figure among Vietnamese". DHN (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A top artists in one of the world's largest countries (larger population than any in Europe save Russia) with articles in 12 languages. The article needs an update and is still in the present tense, however. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, no impact outside of Vietnam. Wizardman 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to look under the Please do not section above where it says "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Considering we post top musicians in smaller countries like the UK, his death should certainly be enough for RD, and I would argue maybe a full blurb as well. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is remotely close to what we would consider suitable for a full blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose No evidence of even the smallest level of international significance. None of the songs mentioned in his article have their own articles. Ryan Vesey 22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Picked up by the LA times. Ryan Vesey 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lack of English-language articles doesn't mean that they're not notable, especially since those who care and know most about his work typically don't know English. In the Vietnamese Wikipedia there's an entire category for his works. DHN (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I never suggested that they're not notable, I suggested that he's insignificant to those reading this encyclopedia. If he was significant, someone would have written the articles. Ryan Vesey 23:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Updated The article now reflectes the past tense and meets the five-sentence update requirement. I call on an admin to use discretion and consider posting this. The nominee clearly meets the requirement that he be at the top of his field: "He is considered one of the great musicians of the new musical VN with a massive number of tracks as well as diverse genres..."[17] The opposes above ("I haven't heard of him", "not notable outside one country") are clearly in violation of the guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been established that he meets any of the criteria for including deaths? Where is the consensus that people are satisfied that he meets them? Kevin McE (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that when Trinh Cong Son (a composer of similar stature) died, his funeral was attended by thousands of people [18]. I'm sure Pham Duy's funeral will be as big, if not bigger. DHN (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who has said "I haven't heard of him" or "not notable outside one country"? I'm not seeing either of those quoted phrases in any of the opposes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (S)he's paraphrasing and conveying the gist of the opposes... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't heard of him" wasn't the gist of anything in this discussion. No one has said anything close to that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "he's insignificant to those reading this encyclopedia" looks suspiciously like "nobody speaking English has heard of him", which is decidedly Anglocentric. One need not speak / read English to be highly significant within one's country. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the fact that all of the sources provided are in Vietnamese, including the BBC article, suggests a lack of importance to the English speaking world. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  His son's death last month was picked up by the LA Times, so it's a matter of time before the English-language sources pick this up. It's less than 24 hours since he died. DHN (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I see SYSTEMIC BIAS has become SYSTEMATIC BIAS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's his obituary in the LA Times. DHN (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to mention yet again that this is Wikipedia in English, not Anglophonopedia? The fact that the sufficient, reliable sources are in Vietnamese is no obstacle to their relevance. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support More inclusiveness is more better. --Jayron32 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Our death criteria are very clear. This has no international impact, and this was not an outstanding musician. Ergo, no post.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, ITN/DC also states that "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region," which he does pass the second part of the criteria. If one of the criteria was met, it can be considered. –HTD 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With sources like this proclaiming him to be "the most important Vietnamese musician of the 20th century" and numerous sources proclaiming to be "one of three most influential", your claim that he was "not an outstanding musician" sounds trollish to me. His death received international coverage, as shown through The LA Times, VOA, BBC, RFI, and Radio Free Asia. DHN (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article seems to suggest a fairly important individual in his field. Decent article quality as well. Can't see what we lose by not posting to the ticker, it's not like we're pushing another entry off. Simple question: is the main page better or worse for linking to this article? Sure, for cultural and language reasons, 99% of people are going to think "eh, who's that?", but then they can click the link and read a decent encylopeadia article, showcasing Wikipedia's ability to cover topics from all countries, languages and cultures. Or we could just have some white space.

(tl;dr version: it'd be a posting that helps the project, if it doesn't meet criteria, criteria be damned) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, Luke.

The nomination meets or exceeds all criteria. It's updated, sourced, well-written; Duy meets the best in his field criteria. We don't even have a pending discussion on removing Vietnam from ITN because it's so foreign. An admin should use reasonable judgment and post this. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready Not sure why this was re-marked not updated after it was. Marking ready given changes of votes from oppose to support and no opposition based on invalid reasons per guidelines.
• Oppose per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you claiming that the deceased was NOT "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", or that the field of Vietnamese music is not significant enough? If it's the former, you obviously haven't read the article. DHN (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The second. --IP98 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Vietnamese music is not significant but Irish poetry is? DHN (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't seen the very easy posting on some Gaelic sports guy. –HTD 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL this should be overridden if someone says "support" per ITN/DC #1-B. Which I will. Support per ITN/DC #1-B. –HTD 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL this should be overridden if someone says "in what way did he have a significant impact on the region", which I will. --IP98 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL the links DHN supplied to us? –HTD 03:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL I read the article end to end, it doesn't explain how he passes ITN/DC #1-B. LOL update the article. LOLZ! --IP98 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  LMAO the death section has 4 references, and the LA Times calls him "Vietnam's most prolific songwriter", "captured the strength of his people through years of turbulence" isn't enough to demonstrate his lasting influence? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL –HTD 04:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Also from LA Times: "was considered the most famous composer of popular Vietnamese songs". DHN (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Highly notable in his field and important to a large nation with a considerable diaspora. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looking at some other large wikis, it's in the huge recent deaths section of es, but is not on fr, de, nl or ru. As best as I can tell, it.wikipedia.org doesn't have an ITN section. Looking at other wikis in the region, it's on vi.wikipedia.org (obviously), but id.wikipedia.org and ms.wikipedia.org do not have it. *shrugs*. FYI only. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this applies for most deaths that we post in the ticker (not full blurb). Dennis O'Driscoll, whom you supported for RD, didn't even have an article in any other language besides English. DHN (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article's traffic over the past several days jumped from virtually nothing to more than 1000 per day without even being on the front page. The Vietnamese article peaked at about 11k per day. DHN (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I can't actually think of a single more famous living Vietnamese person, actors, film directors, writers, politicians included. @User:IP98 I realise that a songwriter makes more difficult cultural transit than a novelist (who can be translated) but Pham Duy can't pass notability for "in the News" then there probably needs to be a note "non-English-language musical artists can never be candidates for in the news, even if they are the most famous there is their country" and that would save wasting time with nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Thought I'd posted this earlier. Kpalion has it right: large nation, large diaspora, large creative field. Overall effect: large. Can we post this now, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. --Jayron32 18:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Said clashes

Nominator's comments: Both the sentence and the death toll are significant. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow I've never seen any court simultaneously sentence so many people to death over one incident. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a nomination below, with unanimous support, for the wider 2012–2013 Egyptian protests. That article contains a little text on this incident. This, that, or a combination of the two, I believe we should be posting something Egypt-related as soon as possible. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Combine Yes, something like Protest riots in Port Said and across Egypt kill dozens. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Czech presidential election, 2013

 --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with change to "is elected" per precedent. - filelakeshoe 15:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and fixed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The credit should go also to User:Cimmerian praetor and User:Patrickneil. They did a lot of work on the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notability as per ITN/R. Post when infobox and results table have second-round results. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for the remaining 0.08% of votes. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All results counted and added to article. - filelakeshoe 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• posted per ITNR and article condition. --Jayron32 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Wynne

Nominator's comments: First openly-gay leader of a Canadian province, and of Canada's largest province with a population of over 10 million. --Nbpolitico (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is minutiae in a non-national election. It's nothing distinctive nowadays, considering we have lengthy lists like List of first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada and List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. Also, the nation is Canada. I would consider an item like this if it occurred in Uganda, for example. Spencer^T♦C 02:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "First gay"... is getting kind of old. When she's elected Canadian Premiere we'll list her regardless of her love interests. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only elected as provincial head, and her being gay doesn't add any more importance to that. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Subnational elections aren't notable enough for ITN; if this was for Prime Minister of Canada, it would be notable and get posted simply for being PM; being gay would be a bonus(in terms of ITN). 331dot (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – a huge milestone for Canada and Ontario. Not only is she the first gay premier in Canada, she's also the first female premier of Canada's most populated province. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A little local curiosity, and not for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 04:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- We didn't even post the last time a country allowed gays, so this isn't so big. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 Uribana prison riot

Nominator's comments: Violent deaths of dozens of people. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Exceptionally violent actions. Covered in mainstream international, English-language media. --RJFF (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Article meets the bare minimum with regards to size, it would be nice to see some expansion if possible, but as this meets minimum standards (per prominent coverage and no major problems with article) I don't see why this couldn't be promoted to MP. --Jayron32 17:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean how this meets the bare minimum, which for standalone articles is "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" as per WP:ITN. The article has the references, but does not have three complete, well-formed paragraphs. Spencer^T♦C 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been updated to my satisfaction. Striking the weak part. --Jayron32 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Updated. The article is now well updtaed, meeting the three paragraph and five sentences requirement. The event, with over 50 deaths, is quite notable for a developed country. μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. Article updated, consensus to post. Spencer^T♦C 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French court orders Twitter to divulge identity of users

Nominator's comments: Somewhat of a minority topic (Tech news and the law), showing up on top tech news sites like ZDnet and tech pages of other major news sources. --Jayron32 00:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Implications of international import. Especially significant for Wikipedians, in my opinion. Jusdafax 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with jusdafax. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Can someone explain to me the difference between this and the fact that Google was ordered to do the same 14,116 times just last year alone? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I can't see that there is a difference of principle between this and subpoenas or warrants directed to other internet companies (ISPs, search engines, etc) for information about their users. As story about Google indicates, they are common. Neljack (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose At no point was twitter immune to such subpoenas or warrants. Why would anyone think they were? It is not news. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a point of information, Twitter has no employees or offices in France so it is not entirely clear this can even be enforced. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All I am seeing in this is just a regular court issues subpoena to internet company, is there a reason to think that this is Twitter's first such subpoena, I doubt it. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 10:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose From what I've heard, Australian courts have ordered several social networks to perform certain tasks as a result of hearings for years. I don't see how this is any different, and I doubt Facebook will appeal or refuse to provide the information upon request. They've always complied with requests. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- I don't really understand the support votes. This is only in France, so not of international import. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Oswald

Nominator's comments: While storm was not extremely "strong" by cyclone standards, it does appear to be causing widespread damage in Australia. --Jayron32 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The coverage of the cyclone making landfall is not even wide in Australia. There's just been some flooding in and around a few areas with most of the damage cost deriving from crops. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the most recent reports I've changed my vote to neutral. Usually the natural disasters we post involve loss of life in the tens or even hundreds, we shouldn't post events just because it affects a developed nation. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No deaths, and the storm doesn't have its own article, but what we do have describes it as weak. 22:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)~~
  • More coverage now, and unfortunately one death has just been reported, and it seems the situation has deteriorated as there was a "statewide catastrophe declaration from the Insurance Council of Australia", see Brisbane Times report: [25]. Some dams ie. Awoonga Dam are apparently at breaking point. - 220 of ^Borg 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One death could be the result of a small thunderstorm or a passing fog. Unfortunately the Awoonga lake article is written from a solely Australian standpoint, mentioning things like AHD and hectares without conversion or explanation, so as a foreigner I am unable to tell whether the dam's failure would be significant or not. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea missle tests and threats

Nominator's comments: News over the last several days regarding North Korea's threats against the U.S. and South Korea has been fairly prominent. --Jayron32 00:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Specifically per the North Korean government stating "Sanctions' mean a war and a declaration of war against us." Question, did we post this, when North Korea threatened to destroy South Korea soon? Ryan Vesey 00:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is a non-event, a pretty empty threat considering North Korea's current nuclear capability, and it doesn't look like anything more than the usual North Korean posturing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The New York Times article states that US intelligence estimates say North Korea might be able to reach Hawaii and has plutonium for 6-10 boms. While it might be a threat that won't be acted upon, it's no longer empty. In addition, this was the first time they explicitly threatened the United States with a nuclear attack (it had previously only been implied. Ryan Vesey 00:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best, they could possibly hit Hawaii with an empty missile. I don't think they're close to producing a nuclear warhead small enough to be deliverable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " I don't think they're close to producing a nuclear warhead small enough to be deliverable." - Citation needed, for this piece of OR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[30] --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This latest round of rhetoric is nothing new from them; not noteworthy unless there is an actual nuclear test or another missile test. 331dot (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the moment, if this escalates to more than just rhetoric then come back. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 10:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until North Korea actually decides to drop a nuke on the U.S. or South Korea.--WaltCip (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- Extreme speculation. I regularly read the KCNA website, and they are always threatening war. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Five dead, 335 injured in Egypt protests

Nominator's comments: Protests in several cities across Egypt; tens of thousands of people in Tahrir Square, several hundred injured and five dead. C628 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Fatalities on this scale are pretty significant. Make sure the totals are checked for currency before posting, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am seeing this prominently across many news sources, and the article is in good shape. --Jayron32 23:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Egypt is a key player in the Middle East, and this kind of event is major. Jusdafax 01:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Large number of casualties in a major event. 331dot (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The sheer number of people implicated in this is enough to convince. Let alone the fatalities. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Deaths up to seven now: [31] --Jayron32 04:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very significant this major event shows, unfortunately, that nothing has changed.Egeymi (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but protests are basically continual now, [32] with 16 deaths has happened between this nomination and now (I've added some prose to the article). As such I've suggested an altblurb that is less specific about numbers, such that the blurb won't be made out-of-date by future events. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as Ready as this seems to have both the support and article quality necessary to make the main page. I've voted, so I am ineligible to promote it myself, but hopefully another admin is watching and will put this up. I also suggest the altblurb as the situation is dynamic and leaving off the numbers seems prudent right now. --Jayron32 17:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confrontation in Senkaku Islands dispute

Nominator's comments: The Senkaku Islands dispute has heated up considerably in the past few weeks, and this is just the latest incident in a string of incidents that includes threats by both Japan and China to use military force to enforce their respective claims to the area. --Jayron32 22:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC) --Jayron32 22:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm not convinced this minor confrontation is enough to get this ongoing dispute on ITN; only water cannons were used and no one was hurt. If there was a more intense confrontation, such as the use of arms to halt a ship or injuries, then I could see this getting posted. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with 331dot doktorb _words^deeds 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Water canons are fairly common in this dispute. When reading the blurb I though actual rounds were fired, when that happens, we can post it. Ryan Vesey 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only water canons were used so if this to be posted in needs to be rephrased ("engages" in particular) to show only nonlethal force was used. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Headley sentenced for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks

Nominator's comments: Major terrorist attack, conviction and sentencing of a significant player in that attack. --Jayron32 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The verdict is not surprising, the principal is not that notable and certainly not at the top of his field. Hate to oppose two noms in a row by the same person, but this is just not incredible news with a high reader interest in a great article. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Effectively "news in brief", this is an afterthought which has no place on our front page doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. From what I gather, this individual was not the mastermind of the attack or otherwise had some sort of leadership role; he seemed to be more of a functionary figure who just scouted things out. As Doktorbuk said, essentially this is just an afterthought. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As I'm discussing over on WT:ITN, posting this story would be far preferable to leaving ITN un-updated (it's been four days since an update). However the arguments above are fully in line with our standard practices here. I think this shows that are current practices are in need of serious revision. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stories should be posted because there is a consensus that they are notable; they shouldn't just be posted for the sake of posting one. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are in a hurry for an update, the Israeli Election article has been abundantly updated and is an ITNR item. But perhaps letting it age is the better course? μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this seems a little overblown (some of the coverage, not the nom). Plenty of women have been in so-called support roles. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a policy issue, not a legal development, and not one that lends itself to featuring a relevant good article readers are looking for, which is the point of ITN. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not strictly opposed to the idea per se, this seems like a newsworthy event to me, but any relevant articles, either women in combat or women in the military by country are in pretty rough shape, and by the time they were cleaned up to anything of the standard we usually post here, it wouldn't be timely news anymore. --Jayron32 04:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing nominated, nothing to support doktorb _words^deeds 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Minor domestic policy change that has little global significance. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 08:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As said by others above, this is just a government policy change; if it was Congress passing a law directing such a change, that might be noteworthy enough, but this is just DOD Secretary Panetta starting a policy change(which will take time to go into effect) that a future POTUS and Secretary could change back. Also no article nominated. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per LittleGreenApple. There is simply no major impact beyond this story. It sounds interesting and amusing indeed, but definitely not a news that bears much notability at all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As far as I understood, this is mostly a technicality as women have been allowed to serve even before. And anyway, there is nothing revolutionary about women in military. Cf. Israel Defense Forces, for example. --hydrox (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]