--Niemti (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine earthquake and tsunami panic

Nominator's comments: The tremor caused widespread panic in Eastern Visayas, where many inhabitants exited their homes. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Localised tectonic activity. Few casualties. Tsunami alert rapidly cancelled. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not notable.Egeymi (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, i dont agree with. It is notable. The earthquake caused widespread panic across the Pacific. People fled. How can you not call that significant...!? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I try to emphasize its global effect, not personal one. I think we should be neutral in regard to the events even such events happen near us. On the other hand, instead of being angry at me you might put your support vote here. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But he already !voted as he's the nominator. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I noticed late. However, the nom may refer to the rules of DO NOT, stating "Do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't do that, but you did. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How did I do that? Can you please show me my accusation of nominating this blurb? Very odd. I just put my vote, then the nom wrote smth. Then I tried to justify my vote, although there is no rule asking the justification of votes.Egeymi (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Because I try to emphasize its global effect, not personal one," implying that Anirudh found the event notable because of personal effect. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not really mean it. I am sorry if my words are understood in this way. But, it was not an accusation. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral leaning support A very powerful earthquake. The effects section talks about destroyed bridges, but that's citing CSM, which is citing a text message. If the quake caused significant damage, I would support. We're not a death ticker after all, so "not enough deaths" is a pretty weak oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP98 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. A powerful earthquake, while not many have died, the impact is still large. Weak because it didn't make headlines (or at least I didn't see it there on CNN, BBC and AJE). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh is about the best that can be said. If there is sufficient reader interest I am for it, but checkviews isn't supporting that. It may actually have saved net lives, given the people who weren't killed in crimes and car accidents that were avoided because people were otherwise occupied. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - something new, a powerful earthquake which has had an impact on the region. --Activism1234 00:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement

Nominator's comments: Consisting of 120 member states, and 21 observer countries which represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population, it is the most important gathering of the Developing Countries. It is the international framework for South-South cooperation. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- See original nom. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we already discussed this below... --Activism1234 03:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that time (26 August) some of the supporters told the issue is premature and proposed waiting until the main summit starts(30 August). So I wrote there I will renominate it at the end of August. Unfortunately, I could not find those discussions. I think it deserves to discuss again.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion can be found here. --Activism1234 03:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you can see at the end of the debate we concluded to wait until the main part of the event starts and the article become more complete. This was my last comment:Due to the fact that the main days of summits are 30 and 31 August and the major decisions will made at that time, the subject is per-mature now. Therefor I accept that it is not a good decision to put the article on the main page before 30th.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning support. Interactions between these countries at this sort of level are significant, particularly given the number of major oil producers and in the context of the Syria situation. The lack of direct EU and US representation, as well as their stances towards Iran, will have an obvious effect on the level of coverage, so the inevitable "the New York Times are doing this, the BBC are doing that" arguments should be given less weight than they usually warrant. —WFC— 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment* The issue has covered well by English media of south Asia very well. I we consider people of India as English speakers, then it has a lot of significance.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India has historically been a leading figure of the NAM. The Times of India doesn't display it on the first main section of its website, only as a link below in "world" and only 1 article. --Activism1234 05:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose until someone can tell me anything that's actually happened of any significance. Hot Stop 05:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speeches and rhetoric. Natural for Persians to be excited over the summit, but as of now, pretty much just that. --Activism1234 05:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because the event is significant from the view of Middle East politics: it includes important diplomacy on the Syrian civil war, Nuclear proliferation (including the Iranian Nuclear Program and sanctions against Iran), Palestinian statehood and UN reform.Bless sins (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It includes rhetoric on some of that. The latter one, for example, is primarly Iran's supreme leader blasting the U.N. as "undemocratic" and a defunct relic of the past that is "bullied" and controlled by the West, although serves as a great example of the glaring POV issues in the article by certain editors. Another example - for Palestinian statehood, there isn't any diplomacy on that - just Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas saying again that they're not delaying their statehood bid. Syrian civil war - comments by Egyptian President Morsi supporting the opposition. Etc... Rhetoric and speeches isn't diplomacy, saying otherwise is misleading. --Activism1234 06:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That a junket was held is not news. If something actually newsworthy came of it that should be mentioned. Until then, huge oppose. μηδείς (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - expanding on Medeis and Hot Stop. There are many meetings and summits with world leaders, ranging from the environment to weapons control, and some of them even have more delegates than this one, but we don't post them all. Yes, world leaders meet. This is a regular summit regularly held. Minimal news coverage on top headlines - see BBC, Reuters, etc. Even on leading countries of the NAM, such as India (historically known for its leadership of the NAM) it's not getting much coverage (see Times of India). The IAEA report on Iran that Iran has doubled its centrifuges at Fordow has been getting more coverage on these websites. Although not a requirement for posting, I think it's useful when assessing the importance of this summit. There's also glaring POV issues in this article that don't make it suitable for the front page, and attempts to create neutrality just get changed by a few editors with a bias in an attempt to minimize anything that can be perceived as criticism of the Iranian government, even in a speech by the United Nations Secretary General. I noticed yesterday a conspiracy theory being reported as a fact ("Iran condemned the Western world's equipping of Israel with nuclear weapons" was one thing that remained on the page for a while). Iranian-government owned references are used throughout the article to change sentences or use as reference - problematic when you consider that Iran has censored its media outlets to be biased on reporting the NAM. As long as these editors will keep on doing this, the problem won't be remedied. Nothing major has come out of this, other than a few speeches and a photo-op. A lot of speeches, but that's rhetoric. We can condemn people or rhetoric all we want, but it's still just words, and previous nominations regarding rhetoric on other topics such as Syria were rejected for this. --Activism1234 07:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You were an active editor of the article and we improved the article with cooperation. I agree that Iran's media censor some criticism but we refered to non-Iranian media as the resource in every case which could be controversial. So please write your ideas in the talk page of the article, if you think it is not neutral.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Hot Stop, Medeis, and Activism1234, and there has been no significant outcome of the discussions at the summit. So, its closing statement will cover just known stances and approach.Egeymi (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even NAM countries doesn't consider this as important. I don't think that this will be able to make to ITN for the next some years, because Cold War II and Unification of Soviet Union will be red links till then, I guess. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I do not agree this is merely another run-of-the-mill international summit meeting. I also find it particularly important to present this forum at a time when other international forums are unanimously giving support to the western-orchestrated campaign against to government of Syria. __meco (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nothing substantial yielded at the summit. Nor was expected from it. Also, no major agenda discussed widely in mainstream media. The group, as claimed, is losing its appeal.Regards, theTigerKing  17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - run of the mill.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed to all summits, marches, protests, riots, conferences, and all other sorts of press releases and street theater, etc., unless a major substantive breakthrough which itself is newsworthy occurs. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not convinced by the significance of the meeting or its decision making. doktorb _words^deeds 07:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Cholera outbreak in Sierra Leone

 --Activism1234 20:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, cited as the worst outbreak in the last 15 years.Egeymi (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Shocking figures. ComputerJA (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the outbreak should be moved to the notable outbreaks subsection, instead of under history. Is there enough for this to spawn its own article? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally suggested this as notable, though i think a seperate 2012 Sierra Leonian cholera outbreak akin to 2010-2011 Haitian cholera outbreak would be more suited as its NOTNEWS to the cholera page.

Update was rather poor and misplaced.Lihaas (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010–2011 Haiti cholera outbreak is a really great article, but I don't see this article getting that long, although it could definitely if editors paid attention on the media for this, but I don't know if this an issue that it can happen again with. Feel free to move it into a new article, I won't oppose though. --Activism1234 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created 2012 Sierra Leonian cholera outbreak. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Activism1234 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is short, but has no major quality issues and covers existing scholarship adequately. This is being covered by the news sources, said sources consider it significant, so I don't see why we shouldn't either. --Jayron32 17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support bad news having a state of emergency but notable. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Like others I am a bit concerned by the stub article, but I see work is continuing on it. Let's consider marking it ready and posting in light of the consensus. Jusdafax 18:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 19:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb incorrect A cholera outbreak in Sierra Leone is declared a national emergency following the deaths of more than 300 people. Incorrect use of English, highlighted by bolder part. It could be: A cholera outbreak in Sierra Leone causes a national emergency to be declared following the death of atleast 300 people.Regards, theTigerKing  03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hurricane Isaac/Issac (2012)

Nominator's comments: Making headlines around the world. Loss of life, thousands affected and the economic damage. Regards, theTigerKing  15:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Previously nominated by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.19.244 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 August 2012 here. Please vote there and not here, if needed.Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see it. Thanks :)Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with this blurb and based on this information. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Nearly all of the deaths happened last week when the storm hit Haiti (i.e. before the last, failed nomination). If they weren't important enough then, they're not important enough now. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a failed nomination. Just it was put on hold. Also, federal emergency declared in the US today. Weather analysts announced today that the effect from Isaac would be more pronounced than Katrina in the US.Regards, theTigerKing  17:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A federal declaration of emergency is a political no-brainer two months before a general election and in the wake of Katrina. And who cares what the weather analysts say if Isaac pales to Katrina's death and property toll?--Chaser (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: It meets all of the requirements for an ITN item: It's a good, updated article and it has clearly been making news all over. --Jayron32 17:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, we've got one editor's POV on the storm, but not an ITN-criteria rationale as to why a good article at the top of the news should be rejected. We have an overwhelming majority of waits and supports from the previous nomination--and the "wait" period is now over. I don't know the mechanics of how the dup noms should be handled, but this article should go up without delay. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think "wait" votes meant "wait until it happens". But it never did. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the million or so people who are without power today, or the hundreds of thousands whose homes and property are damaged, if it didn't happen. ANd that's just the U.S. The dead people in the Carribean and those whose homes were damaged there also would be surprised that the Hurricane didn't happen. --Jayron32 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We can post this if we also post when it snows in the UK this December. Formerip (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it does, nominate it, and we'll probably post it. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready - I marked it as ready based on the # of support votes in the nomination below, as well as here. --Activism1234 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readiness and support !votes are totally different issues: this comment makes no sense. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Someone upload the photo, please. --Tone 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture added. --Jayron32 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting comment: Less than 2½ hours between nomination and posting on a challenged nomination seems undue haste on a non-news ticker. I'll just put on record that I find the rapid posting after US impact, and the previous silence after its more deadly impact on the Caribbean islands an indictment on the systemic bias in this project. And that is without the comparison between monsoons and hurricanes. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't 2 1/2 hours after posting. This is a mis-done second nomination. See below; the posting was done based on the prior support of the previous nomination. Though I understand and agree with your point that the damage to the Carribean should have been sufficient to post this, this venue is unlikely to generate the change you wish to see. May I suggest that the discussion happens at WT:ITN instead of here, because complaining one-by-one on each example of systemic bias is a futile exercise, doubly so for an item that you seem to think should have been posted earlier. The points you raise are important, but this venue will ensure that nothing at all will be done about them. Best to carefully consider how to frame the problem, and the correct location to have the discussion, in such a way that it will affect the change you seek. --Jayron32 19:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was rapidly posted after it faded into a tropical depression in the US, and there was consensus to post it, not because it simply reached the US. Claims of Bias on ITN drive me crazy. If it's newsworthy, and the consensus says post it (which there was consensus to post this), then it gets posted. If more newsworthy events come out of the US then other countries, and consensus says "post it", then they get posted. If it was the UK instead of the US that has more headlines in the media, they would get posted, just the same. ITN is not bias, it's the way news works. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this is just a plain bad post. The previous vote was clearly in favour of "wait, we do not post media predictions of Armageddon", rather than "wait and then post as soon as it passes more-or-less without incident". Plus the blurb is far too concise. We need to list the individual towns and, if possible, locations of upended garbage pails. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the first nomination was clearly "Wait and see how much damage it does". At least 36 people are dead, Haiti was hit bad, flooding is widespread in the Caribbean, and it left 900,000 people without power and $1.5 billion in damages in the US alone. That seems to be consensus enough for posting. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're objections were noted above. Continued snide remarks are also unlikely to generate change; the only conceivable result of them is to piss people off. Sometimes, people don't agree with you. Belittling them with remarks like this doesn't bring those that disagree onto your side. --Jayron32 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Bad posts tend to get pulled if there are enough snide comments. You're right that I won't be able to do it on my own, of course. Formerip (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination did muddy the waters a bit. However, I do think we we look at the discussion below we can see a swing in consensus as storm upgraded to hurricane and the damage became a bit more clear. The current blurb does reflect its impact on the whole Caribbean region. Currently ITN has a bus crash in China with a similar death toll, riots in Kenya, a sports event in the UK, and the death of the first person to walk on the moon. I don't think the current state of ITN is a high water mark of systemic bias, though certainly the fact that this storm eventually hit the US did help this nomination along.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did an editor just say that said editor makes snide comments in order that ITN nominations won't get posted, rather than simple vote with reason explained?? Not sure how much this should be tolerated here... But that's pretty sad. --Activism1234 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Feared dead"? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have an alternate wording? --Jayron32 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mind the wording, but maybe "presumed dead" would be better for MZMcBride? --Activism1234 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree 'feared dead' is an inappropriate wording. presumed sounds better.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'd also go with "presumed." Jusdafax 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting Support - per those that observed that this item was proposed days ago. I was an early supporter of the previous proposal, though with reservations about the previous blurb. Agree with Jayron32 that WT:ITN is the place for those with issues to go, and that this ITN blurb is worthy of the front page per ITN's intended function. In my view, those accusing others of "bias" and making virtually every ITN nomination a drawn-out battle have gradually reached the point of serious disruption of ITN. We either solve this festering issue inside our ITN community, or we will have to call for other eyes. I for one am about out of patience, but still hopeful that we won't have to appear like a bunch of squabbling children to the wider community. Jusdafax 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a new section at the ITN talk page regarding bias claims. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Belated oppose a small storm at the height of hurricane season. Tragically people die in almost every storm in Haiti, and though we're not a death counter, the number was relatively small. See no reason to pull now that it's up, but it really should have not gone up. Same as monsoon rain deaths. PS: It hit us here in south florida too, how come we don't get a mention in the blurb? --IP98 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace "feared" with "suspected". "Feared" carries too much emotional baggage. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New World Discovered

 --Activism1234 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not the first binary star system (we have actually found three-star systems) and not the first system with multiple exoplanets. So this is really just another one of those abstract and unnecessary "firsts". _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not touched on the point being made. This is the first system in which the two suns are close and the planets orbit about the paired stars rather than the stars being far apart with the planets only orbiting around one of the suns. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this correctly, it's a binary binary, or two planets orbiting around the center of mass of two stars. That's really not that impressive of a first considering the scant distance between the stars. In fact, it's no more impressive than Kepler-16b, which was a DYK.--Chaser (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing one way or the other on posting, I just thought the issue should be made clear. If they determine the Kessel run can be made in fewer than 12 parsecs from that system, I will support. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For the record, I oppose posting.--Chaser (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While this is very interesting, it doesn't seem like news to me. It's one of those fascinating snippets I appreciate reading about but its landmark-ness is really just a case of being the first of a very specific type of arrangement; would we then post the first three-planet–two-star arrangement, etc? A good DYK hook could easily be gained instead, as a new article is obviously a viable option. GRAPPLE X 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have to stop treating these discoveries with unbridled reverence. As Grapple X suggests, this could be bumped to DYK, which is less high profile but more suited to these minor bits of trivial interest. Not sure ITN suits this kind of thing to be honest. doktorb _words^deeds 06:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Much more suitable to DYK. Fascinating though exoplanets are, their discovery just isn't headline news any more. Perhaps if one is found to have signs of life on it some day? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China Coal Mine Explosion

• New article Xiaojiawan coal mine disaster has been created. Beagel (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll up to 26. [5] Beagel (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

37 is killed, 10 is still missing. [6] Beagel (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

41 is killed, five is still missing. [7] Beagel (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but it needs a map. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very experienced with adding pictures (in this case a map) to articles but I did find one which may be a good picture for the article. The picture I think would be good for the article is: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panzhihua.png Andise1 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am added the infobox for mine, including location map (showing location in China) Beagel (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but change "still are" to "remain" --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is borderline but it will have no longterm importance, no great article that needs featuring, and little reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mexican elections: Enrique Peña Nieto

In the next few days, Mexico's electoral court will confirm the victory of Enrique Peña Nieto. They have until September 6, 2012 but they might confirm it earlier (probably Thursday or Friday of this week). [8]

Nominator's comments: It is not official yet, but let's be ready. I'm not sure if the vote-buying allegations should be included in the blurb. It can POV pushing, and especially because nothing has been confirmed by the Tribunal. BTW, feel free to fix the blurb. ComputerJA (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: moved to Aug 30 to avoid confusing the bot. Oppose a ridiculously early nomination which anticipates the outcome. If it can be anticipated so definitively that doesn't really say much for the notability of the nomination: it's a simple formality. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Correct. I'm not trying to get an early nomination. I just want to point out that the Tribunal's decision is coming up. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when confirmed - it wasn't a few votes in dispute, it was alleged that 5 million votes were stolen. This should confirm once and for all who the president of Mexico is. --Activism1234 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Support, notable, since the election appeal of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was rejected by the highest election court.Egeymi (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mexico declares that Enrique Peña Nieto is the winner of the presidential elections. This is ready to be posted. ComputerJA (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some mention of the nation-wide anti-imposition protests is important. No need to mention vote-buying or other allegations, but it's important that the election results aren't isolated to Mexican bureaucracy. Not sure how to fit this in, though (I have the flu and my brain is mush). Xavexgoem (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. It's a difficult one. Feel free to come up with your own; I'm neutral for including the protests. BTW, the anti-imposition movement is led (although not entirely) by the Yo Soy 132. Hope you get better. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico in the 2012 presidential elections after nation-wide protests led by Mexican movement Yo Soy 132.? That might be a little undue (also: YoSoy132 hasn't been edited to reflect post-election protests), so also: The Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico in the 2012 presidential elections after nation-wide anti-fraud protests. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I think it has undue weight. What's your opinion on "The Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico in the 2012 presidential elections after the opposition contested the results"? Damn, I wish I was better at this -.- haha ComputerJA (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not just add "contested" in "the 2012 presidential elections"? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. That sounds good. Feel free to make the change. Thank you! ComputerJA (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Was the original announcement of the winner posted? –HTD 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it wasn't official then. I don't think it's official now, either, but it's more official than previously :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't asking on its level of "officialness". I'm asking whether or not it was posted. –HTD 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And my first word was "no". Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Should have used a semicolon[reply]

No, it was not posted. It was yet another, 'wait until the story is irrelevant vote. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Officially he is the President-elect of Mexico.[10][11][12]. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted I modified the blurb a bit. Any comments about that would probably best go to WP:ERRORS or my talk page.--Chaser (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leistungsschutzrecht

Nominator's comments: Could have potential influence on the web and Wikipedia in particular. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to oppose or support on substance of a story with no English language sources provided, and an article that is scarcely a stub, so no choice but to tentatively oppose on basis of little or no news coverage (on neither technology nor Europe section of BBC news site). Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Even as a German speaker, I'm finding it hard to judge the significance of this. And 'significant to Wikipedia itself' is very different to 'significant to ITN'. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I sincerely hope that the blurb, if posted, will be significantly more descriptive.--WaltCip (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blurb is too vague, isn't making rounds on the web/media as far as I can tell, just seems like another bill in a country, regardless of whether it will affect us here. --Activism1234 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Until now there's only a cabinet draft. Wait until, if ever, the Bundestag passes this law. --bender235 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]Summer Paralympics opening ceremony

Nominator's comments: I expect I have got this all wrong as I don't really understand how to do this. Can the Paralympics opening ceremony be added to ITN please in two hours' time please? It is part of the second largest sporting event in the world. The opening ceremony starts at 8.30pm UK time. --86.134.91.171 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb modification: "The 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony takes place in London". Otherwise, support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we can add the stadium's name in which it will take place. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - another editor already posted this below, and I think it was agreed we'd post it on the 29th when the games begin. --Activism1234 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Is ITN/R, notability obvious. Post when ceremony over and article has been updated (put into past tense, etc.). Thine Antique Pen's blurb seems best. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I nominated the 2012 London Paralympics already a few days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2012_Summer_Paralympics (in the future it would probably be a good idea to check if an event has already been nominated before nominating the event yourself).

I did check, on the 29th entries, and there was nothing. What was I to think? I have spent the day bringing the article up to scratch so that it is good enough to be featured in ITN. I don't just nominate, I do. 86.134.50.42 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You only checked one days entries though. Sometimes entries are posted a few days before they are going to happen on ITN (such as the 2012 London Paralympics) which is why I suggest for the future to check each days nominations (or look at the top where it lists the nominations for the past few days and see if an event has already been nominated about the event you were planning to nominate).Andise1 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically there's a place for nominating future events (nobody uses it though). LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - I marked the nomination about the Paralympics below as "ready" because it was nominated first.

Posting (I'll mark this one as posted as it's on the top). --Tone 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please mark both nominations as posted? Andise1 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Activism1234 23:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Paralympics sticky

We seemed to have consensus to post a stick as with the Olympics. The chronology page is there (though can we get someone to whitlink the ticketmaster link that wont enable it to show up?)Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose sticky. No such consensus was reached. It is (and should be) very rare that we have a sticky for a sports event.--24.90.93.13 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As sad as it is, I don't see the Paralympics getting as much coverage as the Olympics, and that includes on Wikipedia. I'm all for posting the opening and closing ceremonies, and any exciting records or events at the Paralympics, but not a sticky. --Activism1234 02:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As mentioned above, no consensus was made for a sticky for the Paralympics. There is/was a discussion in the original first nomination about a sticky. If you read the discussion you will see that a few people oppose a sticky with their reasons for why they think a sticky is not neccessary. Andise1 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It's the world's second largest sporting event so, unless stickies are reserved only for the Olympics, this should get one. Also, we need to take a worldwide view. My impression is that the Paralympics have a particularly low profile in the US, where most events are not even being broadcast live. But in the UK (OK, we are hosting them, fair point) they are getting blanket coverage. Formerip (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only getting a high profile in the UK because it's being hosted there. It's not just in the US that it gets a low profile. It gets about an our a day of coverage on Russian tv during the middle of the day (i.e. filler time) and low profile headlines. On the French paper Lequipe there is some coverage but much less than the US Open and there's a poll with a question 'Will you follow the Paralympic games in London" and 63 percent answered 'No'. The UK isn't a 'worldwide view'. To say the Paralympics are garnering the worldwide interest of the Olympic games or the World Cup is a severe lack of a worldwide view.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust online polls, buy if 37% of French people are following the paralmypics, that doesn't sound too bad. I doubt that many are following the Syrian Civil War or the obituary columns. In terms of media coverage, we may not really know until things get going, but the Paralympics are the main news right now in Australia (link may be time-sensitve) and German Wikipedia seems to think they are important enough for a sticky. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree online polls are dodgy, but I'll point out that the poll doesn't indicate that 37 percent of its readers are following the games (let alone french people in general). There are a number of options besides 'no'. Actually French wikipedia also has a sticky. However, it also has a sticky for the US Open while German Wikipedia has a sticky for Hurricane Issac. All of this evidence is adding up to the fact that on English Wikipedia the Paralympics are worthy of a mention but not worthy of a sticky, which we reserve for vary rare cases.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree with FormerIP. The USA is unusual in giving such a low profile to this event. I understand that NBC is limiting its coverage to a single highlights show after it's all over. This is not the pattern generally - here in Europe, it's a very prominent event. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, we use sticky links for Olympics and for FIFA World Cup (arguably the two biggest sport events in the world). And I believe this is enough regarding sport events. Besides, we're running Syria sticky at the moment already and it's not a good idea to have more than one at a time. --Tone 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at least until there is some sense of the purpose and timeliness of this sticky. I doubt that there is the will and interest to maintain a timely, encyclopaedic, prose driven update on every event. At least two world rcords were broken on the first morning of competition (I don't trust the flagwavers on BBC news to bring our attention to potential other records acheived by non-GB (sic) athletes), but they are not mentioned anywhere that would be suitable for a sticky link. Kevin McE (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Indian court ruling

Nominator's comments: As explained in the sources, the case has major political implications. It is also India's highest-profile conviction in a case, and acknowledges for the first time the role of a politician in inciting Hindu mobs. The Gujarat riots killed over 1000 people. --Activism1234 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - any idea why the template is messing around with us?? --Activism1234 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note 2 sentences is not a sufficient update.

Also NPOV the title of the convictee and removed trivia frm blurbLihaas (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was POV in the blurb? Can you please discuss this before changing it? I just took it from the article and paraphrased it... The current wording "Bajrang Deal" is not good - most people don't know what that is, and it's a red link... I'll update the article more, that's not an issue. --Activism1234 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just th eminor point of the ":Hindu nationalist" leader, which is more accurate as his actual title of whi he leads. Hindu Nationalist is vague, which is also why content should not be taken straight off the media reports. He is he leader of the BD which is wikilinked.Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the passage, it's longer than 5 lines now. --Activism1234 01:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• weak support looks interesting, but I don't know much about it EdwardLane (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hmm I tried tweaking the blurb (adding the comma before the 'and') but that made it look like it might have been 33 people - but leaving the comma out I had to reread the sentence to grasp the meaning. So something needs reworking there. Perhaps the order of the people need swapping round.EdwardLane (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian court ruling

Nominator's comments: I made this nomination considering that we posted something similar for Breivik, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks were also extremely horrific - over 200 killed (not to compare terrorist attacks, but that's more than Breivik), and over 300 injured. Unlike Norway, however, this is a matter of life and death for Kasab - not just jail. --Activism1234 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: did we report Kasab's conviction? If so, I would oppose this on the grounds that we don't need to chronicle every legal action that ends in "the status quo remains". NW (Talk) 05:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In February 2011, the most recent court verdict, we did not post anything about it. The only Indian court-related post was "An Indian court convicts thirty-one people of perpetrating the 2002 Godhra train burning, which led to rioting in Gujarat."
  • We did, however, post a ruling from a lower court in May 2010 about it, but that was over two years ago and was not the highest court (this Supreme Court ruling means there can't be any more appeals I believe, it's certain). --Activism1234 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd say wait till he is actually executed (if at all). There are no more appeals, but he can make a mercy petition to the president who may then conveniently just sit on it for several years. The joke that's been doing the rounds in India was that Microsoft should name their next OS after Kasab or Afzal Guru (they will never hang). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Breivik post was the actual sentence. This proposal is simply that the sentence already handed down was upheld. If it was overturned or changed in some other significant way then I would have supported. As it is, there is no change. --RA (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The supreme court in its ruling has said that it is the most significant of the rarest of the rare of case that has come before it since India became republic in 1950. The upholding of the sentencing is a significant event in the life of "26/11" attacks. The victims were not only Indians, but Americans and Israelis. So there would be international scrutiny to it. Let's not comment on when he would be executed or that the article should be considered only when he is executed. But yes, the response has been positive on his execution from across the political spectrum. The only option left for him is the presidential mercy, if he asks one, the response of which would be highly negative for the "butcher", considering the gravity of the attacks. So, we all can hope for the best. And, it is making headlines around the world.Regards, theTigerKing  15:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable since the verdict (a dilemma for "modern" world) is being discussed and the attack was very shocking.Egeymi (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition, "Kasab" means "butcher" in Turkic languages. An odd coincidence.Egeymi (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - it's a busy day for Indian courts. A state minister was just convicted for murder in one of India's worst religious riots in 2002, when 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, were hacked, beaten, or burned to death. Sourcs - Yahoo, Washington Post. Does anyone feel we should merge this with the blurb? Or leave the blurb, and open a new ITN nomination (or do neither)? --Activism1234 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't impresses me much. Its not in fact a much big news in India, so forget about world. As of the death sentence uphold, I will be neutral on this as the sentence was given yeeeears ago, but it was not executed due to vote-bank politics. I believe that this can be a major news once the sentence is executed, but just a simple uphold is not worthy of coming on ITN. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Kasab's case was going through the whole judicial process and reached the SC only now. It's Afzal whose execution has been okayed twice by the SC and not carried out yet. As for the Gujarat riots decision - it is unrelated and should not be clubbed. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend a new ITN nomination, or like Vibhijain, do you think it shouldn't be nominated at all? Thanks. --Activism1234 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what is going on here? WHy is the same user commenting twice on this thread from/with 2 different signatures. Isnt their a rule gainst using 2 caccounts this way? There certainly should be?Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify who you're referring to? It's impossible to know who you think is abusing two accounts... For all I know, you can be thinking I'm using two different accounts here. --Activism1234 01:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Activism1234 here. Lihaas, what and who are you talking about? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP policy on the use of two caccounts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Upholding a death sentence" = status quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support This is a final decision, one that would certainly have plenty of support had the vote gone left. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The convict is now likely to appeal for a presidential pardon. I think we should only post once a final decision is made. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This does not appear to change anything. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - If you want to get overly simplistic, isn't the story here basically, "Nothing happened"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.124.2 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian high court ruling

Nominator's comments: We're talking about a prime minister in court here, not the most common thing in the world. This is the high court, so I presume it's the final verdict in the case. Also, the case itself has led to an international response, as it has strained relations with the West. The case was high-profile, and attended by President Aleksander Kwasniewski and former president of the European Parliament Patrick Cox. --Activism1234 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support when the verdict comes through, but I am not a big fan of the current blurb. Could definitely be worded better somehow, I just don't know how. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Definitely, I'm going to reword based it on whatever the verdict is, it's just temporary for now. --Activism1234 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Support if overturned because that would be a hugely significant turn of events. Support if original conviction is let stand because it is an internationally controversial case. --RA (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note we posted her sentencing to prison. This would be the appeal.Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose;; as the first comment after the result, its just an appeal that was rejected. NOthing to look at here. Its not even near the top of the news.Lihaas (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a nomination to be top news to post it, that's not what ITN is for. I think that it's plenty to see - a prime minister in court, the final verdict in a case, and the political implications that have followed and will followed, so I wouldn't exactly say there's "nothing" to see here... Feel free to oppose it, as Crispmuncher did below (although not sure what pro-Western POV pushing he's seeing here...) but it'd be wrong to say there's nothing to see. --Activism1234 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is "nothing" here as the case already yielded a result and an unprecedented jailing. This is a rejection of appeal.Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is simply a confirmation of the status quo and has been noted, we've already posted it once. It's not the kind of story that warrants multiple mentions IMHO. Most of the time similar cases would be thrown out on those very grounds. We need to be especially careful about this since it has been portrayed as an East vs. West thing: pro-Western POV pushing is still POV pushing. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose - This seems not to change anything. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Arafat assassination inquiry

Nominator's comments: Seems like pretty big news. True, it's "only" a murder enquiry being opened, but what comparable figure on the world stage has been bestowed that particular honour in recent times? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If it's concluded that he was assassinated, I'd reconsider, but an inquiry is insufficient for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - it's just an inquiry, it's not even known whose suspected of killing him (some Palestinians have blamed Israel, some Palestinians have blamed other Palestinians), and it either way contradicts the official French medical report about his death (died of a massive hemmorhage). The murder inquiry comes in the wake of allegations that he was poisoned by polonium, based on clothing that his wife left around for 8 years and decided one day to test, and abnormally high levels of polonium came back, although some people have pointed out that they should've been very tiny had he been poisoned 8 years ago. But I digress, it's a murder inquiry due to the possibility of a murder, but that possibility is very unclear and the result can very likely turn up to be nothing, so not for ITN in my opinion. --Activism1234 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds really intriguing and potentially good content for the article - but isn't it the exact opposite of a good "oppose" vote? Formerip (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the oppose part in the beginning and after the "But I digress" :) Pretty much same as Muboshgu, except with the part I included as more reasons why I don't find it that notable or important. --Activism1234 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying you oppose it because there are lots of ins and outs and controversy and different views people might take and it's impossible to know what actually happened. But shouldn't all that add up to "interesting" rather than "oppose"? Formerip (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I would've supported posting the allegation that he was poisoned by polonium when it was released a few months ago due to that "interesting" stuff (not sure whether it was posted or not, I wasn't around on ITN). But the police inquiry, which was expected at the time as well, isn't that notable to me, doesn't change any facts on the ground, and doesn't change the theory. The result, on the other hand, may be interesting, but the inquiry itself I don't recommend posting. --Activism1234 01:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, on the side, the appropriate article would be Death of Yasser Arafat (yes, there are tons of rumors and theories on how he died, other than the official medical record!) --Activism1234 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wait for the outcome of the inquiry; if the conclusion is that he was assassinated, then support. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Zaldax; wait until the outcome and then consider its merits doktorb _words^deeds 04:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is conducting the investigation? Is Yassassination the only PLOsibility? Are they looking into whether he might have committed Jewicide? μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so tempted to make a joke about PLOnium... --Activism1234 04:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only because I am sick and tired of people voting wait to mean they will oppose it even when it is finally resolved. I happen to hope 'they' killed the bastard, but will admit it is news, even if they didn't. Let me make merself perfectly clear: even if the investigation is against our wishes, the investigation itself is notable. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This could quite easily come to nothing. And I find the tone of some of the 'support' votes to be distasteful, to say the least. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At lease some of those support votes seem to have taken your concern into account by never having been posted. Formerip (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Let's be specific and say that I don't like Medeis' introduction of political vitriol and the charming term 'Jewicide' into this discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to hat or delete the joke. I am not sure what political vitriol you are referring to--especially since I have supported the nomination. I still think this should go up. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney nominated

Nominator's comments: Obviously not unexpected, but still a symbolic and important move, enough to gain the #1 headline on various outlets. --Activism1234 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I know we usually post these, but I can't see why. We don't post the nominations for any other country. Romney is a foregone conclusion. He's already announced his running mate, and has been running for president for weeks. This whole process is little more than a pageant and a formality. --IP98 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support if it was actually contested, and we were going into the convention without a presumptive nominee (or in this case Rominee). --IP98 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if it is just now official, everyone in the U.S. should already know by now that Romney is the republican candidate. Posting this would just confuse people. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I cannot recall us ever posting a nomination like this. Despite what Ron Paul supporters have claimed, Romney has been the de facto candidate since May and there is no reason to post this. --PlasmaTwa2 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This would be as anticlimactic as posting the Electoral College results when they are certified at the end of December. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mere formality, that he would become the nominee has been known for months, this changes nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Kinda "meh" worthy for most people due to it being highly expected. Not contentious enough of a nomination (presidential, not ITN) for my support. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The correct verb in this context is "rominated". Formerip (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? I'm unfamiliar with that word, and can't find it on Google. Can you please explain? Thanks. --Activism1234 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he'd been yassassinated after he'd been rominated it would be worth an ITN Obamination. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a yassassination in his case. It would be first degree romnicide. Formerip (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the yassassination was more notable than the Salvador Shake.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It was some kind of joke. Forgive me, I'm British. Formerip (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Oh. --Activism1234 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nominations are rarely so important enough that they are front page news within the context of ITN. doktorb _words^deeds 02:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Agree with arguments that if this selection was a much closer contest, the news item would be notable, but we've known it was going to be Romney for at least a month. Formality, non-news. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - obvious this won't be posted. In meantime, y'all (I'm not Southern) might wanna take a look down below at Kenya riots, where a request for votes has been officially administered, and has a serious chance of being posted. Happy votin. --Activism1234 02:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Some person is nominated by some party in some country to stand in some election." Unless there is something unusual about one of those "somes", it doesn't count. This example illustrates the different between ITN on an encyclopaedia and the headlines on newspapers. Just because an event is headlines news, does not automatically mean we should put it on our front page. (And conversely, we can show things on our front page that are not headline news.) --RA (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As if anyone cares. This is the non-news event of the year. "Yawn City. New Hampshire". Sigh... 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't record your sighs. I don't record my farts. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - A predictable event that's purely internal to a political party. We don't report other candidacies; we shouldn't report this. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kenya Riots

Nominator's comments: Hundreds of protestors, two days of violence, looting, pandemonium in Kenya's capital, and some have been killed. --Activism1234 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, notable since it seems to continue and also, per nom.Egeymi (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose riots that involved no fatalities or anything are not notable. Theres also no article, please cite an article when nominating Activism1234, not just anything thats in the news. [14]Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find an article and post that here. I wanted to check that it'd be good with a few editors first, based on the votes here, as I am a busy person. Also, there were fatalities involved...... --Activism1234 23:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have Aboud Rogo, the "radical" cleric who was killed. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll take a look, Egeymi notified me about that before but didn't get a chance. Also, if you feel that radical should be in quotes, by all means go ahead, I based this nomination on the Portal Current Events. --Activism1234 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article significantly. --Activism1234 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the article is still a little too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll expand it some more (infobox, more info, etc), and let you know when I'm done. --Activism1234 00:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? I added a few sections and other passages, and more refs. --Activism1234 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Now we need some supports from others. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article has been updated very well, it's not a subject I know much about (or a story getting much coverage here beyond the World Service), but it looks as though Wikipedia has done its job effectively enough to put this on the front page doktorb _words^deeds 03:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'd much rather post bus accidents, which actually are news, than riots by the usual suspects. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted a bus accident a few hours ago and yet you don't seem to be happy with it. Please clarify your reasoning or I will have to disregard your comments. You can't expect busy admins to decypher them. And as for "usual suspects", are you suggesting that such riots are common in Kenya? You may be right, but can you provide a source for your claim? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems rather clear; I like this nomination even less than the bus accident one. As for the usual suspects, I have no like for printing news items about publicity seekers, whether they are politicians or protestors, unless something else is notable. I don't think the murder of a midlevel thug and advocate himself of violence is newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A riot involving two thousand people is clearly notable. Additionally, the subject is interesting and suitable for ITN on an encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Occupy Nairobi is nothing more than a self generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to our article, the riots occurred in Mombasa, not Nairobi. Did you actually read it? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marked readyLihaas (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted I left off the part about the investigation, as that's not mentioned in the article. I couldn't even figure out what was being investigated (the killing or the riots). -- tariqabjotu 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm interesting, it was in the article before, but I don't mind if it's left out, the protests are still significant. --Activism1234 20:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posted article contention

Why the article has been posted when the no of supports outweigh no of oppositions just by one (Not considering Lihaas vote, if it is considered then they are equal)?Regards, theTigerKing  16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote count. Admin's have to evaluate arguments placed to determine consensus. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? THe user is allowed to vengeance monger here "not counintg my enemies vote"? Are you serious? Lihaas (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pull, Tiger King, is what you should be voting. Wikipedia admins are second to none in their magisterial arrogance, the College of Cardinals included. Yes, it's "not votes", it's the mystērium custōdum that determines what gets censored and what gets promoted. Can you say "self-perpetuating oligarchy"? μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Colombia-Farc talks

Nominator's comments: Very significant world event in a contentious conflict. I'm posting it now, becuase peace talks can take weeks, months, even years, in case anyone says we should wait until the talks are over, and the fact that they're holding talks to begin with is significant. --Activism1234 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the FARC article about this a little while ago, considered nominating here, but by precedence these things wait for resolution to get posted. Also FARC havent indicated acceptance. The ref i added siad that during the talks the army would still maintain its position, so its seemingly tenuosu at the momentLihaas (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC has accepted. See BBC and France 24. It could take weeks, months, or even years until a final peace treaty is hammered out, but the fact that they've agreed to hold them is, at least to me, significant, which is why I nominated it now. --Activism1234 04:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, dint see that yet. Should be interesting. We could have a separate article on the talks (As it is that page is a little disorganised) and DYK it. Id still wait on the posting though. One should also add it to Santos' page as its a big event in his goals for personal legacy. Unlieke Uribe, he wanted the "peace at all costs"

BTW- ive tweaked the blurb as suchLihaas (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as ready...only pending consensus.Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thinks this is ready at all. No one has even voted for it yet (feel free to cast the first vote). After some votes, we can decide whether the tag belongs. --Activism1234 05:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ready is based on the article not the support. I already said "pending consensus"Lihaas (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when the article is ready you mark it as updated. [Ready] is for consensus hence it says above "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves.". Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I learn new stuff everyday. Sorry about that Lihaas! Anyone may feel free to put it back in, I can't do it myself because I nominated it and I think that's another rule. --Activism1234 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No: [Ready] refers to the update status of the article: consensus is a different judgement that an admin makes. But these tabs are entirely arbitrary, were introduced with no discussion, and are added and deleted at whim, so should probably be ignored anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Definitely passes notability test; it got widespread coverage too. ComputerJA (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly notable, clearly news worthy, and clearly of suitable for an ITN section of an encyclopedia. Obvious sort of ITN. --RA (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. I think this is only borderline worthy, but it looks ready and the box at the top of the page is red. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral leaning oppose, it is just a beginning. What will be the results? I think its conclusions, if any, are much notable.Egeymi (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Corrie verdict

• Support. Interesting story on a heated conflict. I've already read about this in BBC yesterday and AJE have a video about it in their main page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait See what the ruling is. It may be a non-matter, thus just a news blip. It may be something bigger too, but I don't think we can assure it would be either way the ruling could go. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Given the verdict puts the fault on her, while there may be longer-range ramifications, there's no major short-term aspects here (a decision against the nations would have been something significant). --MASEM (t) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until verdict - Wait until what the verdict is, then update, and I'll cast a vote based on surprise factor/notability/coverage. --Activism1234 03:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ons of verdicts each day in controversial issues? Where? As high-profile?Lihaas (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't necessarily agree about that, but I'm changing my vote. --Activism1234 06:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - Court has ruled against Corrie, citing combatant activies exception and Corrie placed herself in a dangerous area intentionally. See here. (As I've said before, I'll get sleep, then decide on a vote). I updated the template to include the decision and that the article was updated. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 06:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've revised the blurb again. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should explain the court's ruling - current wording seems to me too POV (not to accuse you of one, you're a great and neutral admin, but remember this is a contentious topic and some editors will construe it this way), as court's ruling pertains exactly to that and is a very different account than simply trying to block a demolition. After all, we're posting the court's ruling here - NOT her actual death. --Activism1234 07:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, feel free to revert it then. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about: "An Israeli court rules that Israel was not responsible for the death of American activist Rachel Corrie in the Gaza Strip in 2003."? --BorgQueen (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the suggestion, I feel that's the best way to maintain NPOV in this area, and I hope others will agree with your suggestion. Anyways, sleep time - good night! --Activism1234 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bloomberg said the rulign was "unintentional" (basically the same that there was no responsibility), lets use that wording. Or better yet, can we get the original first hand wording (and translated from hebrew), though at this level i imagine tehre are official translations.Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Important milestone in an internationally famous protest death. Corrie article and reworked blurb are fine. Good ITN material. Jusdafax 07:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support, very important reaction of the related country. Whatever the media coverage, WP should emphasize it.Egeymi (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, the second quotation mark is missing in the blurb or the first one should be deleted.Egeymi (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note reworded blurb to be accurae. the state was nt a litigant in the case.Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I tweaked it again, just to spell out in full "MoD" as many people not realize what it's referring to at first. --Activism1234 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think this event has received enough coverage to appear on ITN. 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's top news on BBC, RT, CNN and AJE. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it's not on Reuters, AFP, The LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Fox News, Times of London, Xinhua, etc. Let's chalk it up to stupid person does stupid thing, government not responsible. Hot Stop 12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also front page on France 24, guardian, Reuters (US edition), New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, SBS and The Independent. You have the right to maintain your opinion of course. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Front page" does not equate to being an ITN item. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never said that, I was responding to the oppose (not that I don't think it's an important factor to determine posting in ITN). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because it's not featured in *some* news outlets means we shouldn't include it? No, that's not how it works here...seriously.--Τασουλα (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: had it gone the other way things would have been different. Tragic as the original incident may have been this is simply an official confirmation that the forces were not responsible, as had been maintained by the Israeli government. In that respect this is the absence of a development. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Support Asssuming this is the final determination. This was a huge international news story. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- agree with Medeis in regards to some of these votes, looking back at it (I originally opposed) it did receive very high media coverage, and regardless of if there is an appeal this is a crucial verdict in the story and an important one at that Don't be a sheep. --Activism1234 17:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The legal process is not over yet if there is an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court which they are planning to do. Chefallen (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung .v. Apple has recourse to appeal and thats posted..Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This story is very important and seems to have received quite a lot of coverage across a number of outlets. I respect Chripmuncher's view that this is the 'absence of a development', though I'm convinced that it's just on the right side of important to be put onto the front page. That said, it is something of a 'time sensitive' story, by which I mean any further delay in posting might do for it quicker than any oppose votes. doktorb _words^deeds 03:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting How every single one of the waits went to opposes once she was found liable. Are we to assume that those saying "wait" for the supreme court appeal will support when that verdict is upheld? Why do I doubt that? Once again what is inherently notable becomes fodder for the memory hole once the court decides some way we do not like. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support after US pressure, Israel gave entry visas to four ISM witnesses so that they could testify. However it refused entry permission to the Palestinian physician from Gaza who had examined Corrie's wounds on the scene. They investigated themselves and found themselves not guilty. Still getting press in The Guardian, The Australian and Time. --IP98 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're an expert in law now? Remember, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox to complain against a court's own democratic decision, explained in detail in a 62 page report that I doubt you read (if you did, you'd probably realize their testimony would've had little impact anyway)... Just saying. --Activism1234 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was right there at the top of the section and I thought it was interesting. That fact that it's still making news means this story is not only relevant, but has generated more coverage than a Chinese traffic accident. --IP98 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking as [Ready] - Suggest we post, as the opposes are unconvincing. This is an internationally reported story with a fine article and blurb that is of interest to a wide readership at Wikipedia-en. While POV statements on both sides somewhat cloud the issues presented, I believe that we have reasonable consensus to post this as an ITN item. Jusdafax 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted]2012 Summer Paralympics

• Support on 29 August - and I don't think there's a need for a sticky. Sadly, I don't see it getting as much coverage as the regular Olympics. --Activism1234 22:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Premature It is ITN/R, so only issues are timeliness and readiness. Post after Opening Ceremony, but the only obvious omission from the article at the moment is much about that ceremony. Oppose sticky: enthusiasm for it ran out very quickly during the Olympics, and by early in week 2 it was just a list of gold medallists (sterling work on it since though). Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What happened to avoiding systematic bias? -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Is this meant to be a contribution to the discussion? Kevin McE (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highlighting the issue with throwing around the term "systematic bias". We all know that the Paralympics are covered to a lesser degree than the Olympics, and there's no reason for us to treat the events precisely the same in the interest of righting some wrong. The same applies with Tropical Storm Isaac vs. South Asian monsoons. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky wouldn't have to be the same sort of page, though. It could be the main page for the event or any page that can be expected to get updated regularly. I'm not sure either way on a sticky, but the main purpose applies in the same way - without it we may get constant nominations for individual events, and world records are still ITNR. Formerip (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on 29 August. The article starts off in good shape, and this is the sort of article where a quick update is a given. Neutral on a sticky – on the one hand I understand where Tariq is coming from, but on the other it is sadly a fact that the Paralympics receive significantly less global attention. —WFC— 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support on first day of games (i believe thats 30). Opening ceremony can go up tomorrow. For the same reason as accessibility during the ongoing global games.

notwe Ive broken the stick link Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics from a redirect. However, it still needs some work and should be ready, hopefully, by tomorrow/day after.Lihaas (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support story and sticky - While the Paralympics get less coverage than the Olympics, this year's Paralympics are a bigger deal than ever before, and participants like Oscar Pistorius are likely to make the headlines. Let's go with it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on 29 August, International. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb, Oppose Sticky Very notable sporting event, and ITN/R. Definitely notable to post this blurb when the Opening Ceremony is over. Unfortunately the Paralympics don't garner the attention that the Olympics gets, so I feel as though that the sticky would be fairly useless to post, since the main reason for the sticky is to combat Paralympic ITN blurbs from taking over ITN, but I don't see a lot of other ITN blurbs coming out of these games, except for the Closing ceremonies, and maybe something to do with Oscar Pistorius, since he has been getting a lot of media attention. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New world records will be ITNR, though. If there's no sticky, then they're hard to oppose, even if there are a lot of them. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. INT/R suggests some criteria for high profile world records that could have been considered as ITN/R, and it would be hard to argue that any paralympic record is of such status, and how that imprecisely phrased entry is still at ITN/R when a discussion fvoured removal by a !vote of 7 to 1 is a testament to our failure to wrap up and act upon discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, yes, ITNR gives criteria not an automatic right, but I think you're wrong to say it would be hard to argue that paralympic records qualify. Particularly for aquatics and athletics events it may be, to the contrary, hard to argue for very long that they do not qualify as "an event such as aquatics or athletics". Formerip (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved: consensus acted upon and no longer ITN/R. People are welcome to propose specific results: I can't foresee any that I personally would support. Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. FWIW, DYK will have content about the Paralympics (generally, two hooks per each set of eight hooks) throughout the 11-day period of the Paralympics. Paralympics hooks have been running (at most, one at a time) for the last few days. --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (but wait until actually opened) Support blurb and sticky akin to Olympics as an ideal event for ITN on an encyclopedia, but will oppose suggestions for record breaking times, etc. However, just like the Olympics, wait until the event is actually officially opened. --RA (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - please see above on 29th. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 19:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason as to why you nominated this event after it was already nominated by someone else? It appears you saw this nomination but still went and nominated this event again, instead of commenting on this nomination with your thoughts/suggestions. (I am not fully sure you saw this before you made your nomination, but seeing as you commented on this nomination suggesting users look at your nomination makes me believe you already saw this nomination before making your nomination of the same event). Andise1 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not related to the IP that nominated it above. I added the title but did not add the nomination. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years

Oh, I thought you may have been the same person. I see that you were the "updater" of the above nomination. Sorry about the confusion/mistake. Andise1 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm not the only updater. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ready - The games have just begun, so I'm marking this as ready. --Activism1234 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb should be updated to reflect the opening ceremony has occurred (or will finish hours after this comment :P). Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --Tone 22:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Isaac (Hurricane Isaac)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.19.244 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 August 2012

• Strong oppose and speedy close- Good faith nomination, but this is a useless peace of trivia. Close this. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now The current blurb does not show the importance/significance of Tropical Storm Isaac. If Tropical Storm Isaac does a large amount of damage to New Orleans or any state then I will reconsider my thoughts. Also, the current blurb is very US centric, with no mention of the areas that Tropical Storm Isaac has already gone through (Cuba, Haiti, etc.) Andise1 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Let's see what the impact of the storm is. If it has anywhere close to Katrina's impact, it's a definite post. If it's significantly less, it could still be worth posting. If it fizzles out, then it doesn't belong in ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until there is any significant damage/fatalities. The coincidence of being near Katrina is somewhat POV (it's hurricane season, I'm sure we can find lots of comparable events but that doesn't make the strike any more newsworthy.) --MASEM (t) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Using the WP:ATHLETE mentality, Tropical Storm Isaac has not played at the highest level of his sport (Hurricane). Pretty sure we don't post hurricanes unless they are potential retired names. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there have been tropical storms before at ITN; it's not so much if its a hurricane or tropical storm, but the amount of damage and human fatalities that it causes. I can't immediately tell if this was an ITN, but last year's Tropical Storm Arlene (2011) never got to a hurricane but did 100s of millions of dollars of damage and deaths along Mexico's coast. At the same time, just being a hurricane doesn't assure ITN-ness, if it just gets up to speed then veres away from land with no landfall, simply making some nice surfing waves for beachgoers. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - see what happens during the hurricane, any deaths, damage, how bad it is, etc. Then change the blurb to match that, and I'll cast a vote. --Activism1234 22:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It will disappear to the archive in <2 hours, but a nomination below was rejected with "It shouldn't be trivialised, but basically the blurb could be re-written as It's monsoon season in India and Pakistan, just like it is this time every year. If there's a major landslide or something that passes the look-at-all-these-dead-people-how-can-we-not-post-that test, then maybe that incident should be posted." Replace monsoon with hurricane, and India-Pakistan with Caribbean-Gulf, and we have exactly the same thing. Let's see how that stands up to our resolve to avoid systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the blurb is re-written to reflect it's Caribbean impact. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - The anniversary itself isn't the story. Isaac may well prove to be a story in its own right. Let's give it 24 hours and see what happens. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - as per many above, especially AlexTiefling. Re-nominate with new blurb if major news story emerges. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me add my voice to those saying to wait. The story, if there is one, will need to be about this storm, and the blurb will need to stand on its own based on what this storm does. Coincidental connection to the same date and place of Katrina is not the story here, and if it is the story, that isn't enough to hang an ITN item on. --Jayron32 14:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and See I would say hold off on this until after it has faded out, so that we have all the facts straight before posting it. Otherwise, we will just have to keep updating it and updating it. I would support posting it at that time, especially if the death count rises, which unfortunately looks like it will be the case. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As of 0442 here in the UK, so whatever time that is in Louisiana, Isaac is a slow moving hurricane approaching 80mph moving at 8mph towards the west/northwest of New Orleans. There's nothing yet to suggest it will cause the sort of damage or deaths which would satisfy our criteria for front page inclusion doktorb _words^deeds 03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the wind that's the only issue. Heavy Rain has a chance of flooding New Orleans. Massive flooding in a city below sea level will either cause deaths and/or displace thousands of people. Either of these scenarios would make this postable, in my opinion. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point well made. I'd find it difficult to oppose if there's devastation by flooding doktorb _words^deeds 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Front page news for days now and the damage is growing in the same region heavily hit seven years ago, according to the New York Times ( ..."calamitous flooding in many areas.") [15]. Good ITN material. Blurb will need a re-do. Jusdafax 20:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we're still not looking at massive damage. (Though there's indirect effects like the offshore wells being shut down, for example). It certainly doesn't look like it will be the impact of Katrina, in part to its path as well as better preparations. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with blurb update - blurb needs to be changed to reflect the damage of Hurricane Isaac and where it hit. --Activism1234 00:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I said wait earlier, now I support. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Making top headlines around the world. 36 to 39 people are dead as of now. Hundreds and thousands affected by it. But, blurb needs to be updated.Regards, theTigerKing  16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban

 --Activism1234 20:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- "Brutally" and "for attending a party" are strongly POV. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used that wording because reports suggested they were either beheaded or were killed by stabbing their throats, not because of any POV. But I changed it now, should be better. --Activism1234 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• C: The first bit you pointed out Bzweebl goes without saying, but the second part is what a large array of sources are reporting as being the truth. Most certainly could be re-worded, however. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There have been 42 "green on blue" killings this year: no apparent reason to post these ones rather than all the others. The "party" story is a rather sensationalist presentation of an uncertain story: it is also suggested that they were local government workers, and therefore at political enmity with the Taliban. Opposed parties in a war kill each other is not , sadly, remarkable, but is open to propaganda manipulation. Although the sources given above are "reliable sources", they have this information very much third hand from anonymous "local officials" who are scarcely disinterested parties. All we can really say is that there are reports of such deaths Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Weak because I thought it would be too much for my edit history to contain Taliban: support. This does seem like a significant story. However, are we sure that we have clear certain facts about it? Formerip (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should wait a bit before posting it just to ascertain that the story is 100% correct. The refs above are all reliable references, but Al Jazeera seems to be saying another possible version, whereby Taliban commanders had a feud over 2 girls at the party and thus killed all the rest over them... However, anyone who is fine with both versions or opposes both version can feel free to add their vote here in the meantime. --Activism1234 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- This does have some significance in it, but we should wait for a consensus amongst sources over what happened. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this is important enough to justify a front page inclusion. The details are horrific but without the POV implied in that sentence, there's more than just a footnote about this many people dying in such circumstances. doktorb _words^deeds 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't support or oppose anything as I have no article to judge. Could we get an article or an update to peruse before we decide if this is main page appropriate? --Jayron32 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated article. Also changed blurb a bit. --Activism1234 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I updated the blurb to include another attack by the Taliban today. I feel it could use some tweaking though, if anyone feels the same I'm open to suggestions. --Activism1234 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Ugh. WP:PROSELINE much? No one has dropped a cleanup tag on it yet, but there's any number that could apply that would keep it off the main page. It looks like the news is good and the update is there, but I can't in good conscience yet support an article that ugly. If you could give it a rudimentary clean-up I would feel much more comfortable giving this my full support. After all, this ITN stuff is supposed to be supporting the mission of the encyclopedia in making better articles. ITN stuff doesn't have to be FA or even GA quality, but that article is pretty sketchy... --Jayron32 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know I don't like it either. An alternative would be to create a new article just for these three attacks today, which I'd do if I get enough support here (even just 2 people supporting). I've begun working on the Taliban Insurgency article in the meantime, and I'll give an update soon. --Activism1234 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've given the page a bit of an overhaul in terms of aesthetics, prose, date format, references, etc. Hopefully it's better now. There are similar articles on Wikipedia that are lists - proseline is an essay, not a policy. Any other editors can feel free to edit it as well. --Activism1234 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cant put your own nomination as ready, i suppose its COI that way in needing a second pair of eyes. But raead the instructions on the top, nominators cant mark their own nominations as eready.Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks didn't know about that. --Activism1234 05:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. The blurb was about one story, then it was about, two then about three. Why not throw in Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Isaac is expected to reach New Orleans? Blurbs are not really meant to give a roundup of tragic but routine deaths in a warzone. Formerip (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind removing the latter part and just focusing on what the Taliban did. --Activism1234 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Only post if it gets to significant strength/damage. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is awful. But, soldiers, insurgents and civilians are being killed every day. How are we to determine which lives lost should appear on ITN (and so by implication, which should not)? I don't know. --RA (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador quake

Nominator's comments: 7.3..? WOW.. well that seems a little bit too strong. It hasnt claimed any lives yet but more reports are to come. And forgive me if the blurb is way too long. I guess it needs some work. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless the tsunamis occur and actually cause damage. Per the ABC news article, "There were no immediate reports of damages or injuries" (as well as other reports), so if it was just the quake, we'd not report it. Same if there are actual tsunamis but do no damage. Heck, I'm watching TS Isaac which is said to be ready to hit the US coast down there for an ITN item, but as yet its only caused a few deaths (4?) and minimal damage so it's not yet ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait as per Masem. The tsunami warnings element in particular is news tickerish: we'll know whether they amount to anything in a few hours, so why post potentially spurious warnings now? In either event this strikes me as speculative until the full significance of the event can be assessed. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Indian protests

Nominator's comments: Hundreds protesting against PM due to scandal, protests forcefully quelled . --Activism1234 15:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, this has been the top national news in India since the CAG published the report on its findings. This is the article: Coal Mining Scam, but it needs major updating. Its 9.30 pm here now ... I'll try and do the updates tomorrow morning. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of the articles in the nom and the deaths are regarding the Assam disturbance which is unrelated (we posted that last mont, not too much of an increment to report) - not aware of any deaths during the anti-corruption protest. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- There is a very interesting issue; significant in many aspects. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, that has to be the worst rationale I've ever had. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not denying the significance of the scandal, but a demonstration with hundreds of protesters is surely notable only for being a damp squib. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why the references of the coal gate scam have been mixed up with the 2012 Assam violence?Regards, theTigerKing  16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Strongest possible Oppose (For coal gate scam as mentioned in the blurb) : No one was killed in today's protests. Leave alone, no one was injured. And such protests happen everywhere in a democracy. No doubt that CAG reports $180 billion(approx) loss to the exchequer, but they are presumptive losses only. Has the world, particularly India changed after the protests. The answer is No. Also, the blurb is violating NPOV. Why only Indian PM has been mentioned in the blurb? Meanwhile, Team Anna's movement also didn't figure in ITN. So, why this one??Regards, theTigerKing  16:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't notice the AJ ref wasn't from today, I removed it and changed that part of the blurb. --Activism1234 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral leaning oppose. The story is interesting and further reactions could develop as a part of the so called Coalgate, but it is just hundreds of protesters with no reported deaths and didn't hit top news in BBC or AJE. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - I think we just need to wait until the chocolate melts and becomes more silkier and tastier. You know what im saying. This issue is developing. It could get much more interesting in the future. So just wait. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup

 --—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Junior tournament not really noteworthy in its sporting field. We don't usually post U19's tournaments for any sports I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it so? I'm really not aware of the criteria. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its a notable thing, at least in cricket regions. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I think it is not so notable even in cricket regions.Egeymi (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It is quite notable amongst the cricket playing countries and I watched the entire match (switching between this one and the test match vs NZ) but its definitely not in the league of the world cup, the ashes, the world t20 or even the IPL which we post every time. Besides, its a youth tournament - do we normally post those ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose U19 says it all, clearly cannot be the highest level of the sport (as US college sport cannot be). Most players on winning squad do not even have articles, participation in this event is not even deemed to push a player over the NATHLETE threshhold. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If we were going to support a cricket story we should have posted South Africa 1 beating South Africa 2 to take the top spot in the (questionable) ICC rankings.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of nominating it but recalled that when South Africa 2 became No.1 in August 2011, it was nominated but didnt go through. Now that I check, the nomination was not posted despite having unanimous support. But I guess this is too stale now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think with test cricket it makes more sense to post results of key tests that actually determine the rankings. The rankings themselves are somewhat dubious anyway. Thus I think I would have supported the above result had it been nominated. After the last Ashes series, I noted that the number one and number two ICC teams were also playing at the time and we didn't post that despite posting the less significant (rankings wise) Ashes series. The England / India whitewash perhaps should have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per CH and Kevin. Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -for me cricket barely makes it for ITN. Not really a sport of worldwide interest. But even less so when it is the Under-19 .--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not worldwide interest?!--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cheap shot! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ is somewhat correct. Cricket is big in a handful of countries, but those countries are HUGE: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. For example, the there are 106 ICC members while FIBA has 213; the FIBA Basketball World Cup has seen 54 national teams qualify, while the Cricket World Cup has seen 19 teams qualify; heck even EuroBasket has more teams. The I don't think a typical man on the street in either Guangzhou or Buenos Aires ever watched a cricket match. –HTD 14:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is definitely "less global" than basketball. But apart from football, volleyball and basketball which are played pretty much everywhere, most other team sports are pretty much in the same league: rugby, field hockey, cricket, etc.

Volleyball is one of those sports that everyone plays but no one really cares about. The opposite is true for the likes of rugby and American football. Basketball is somewhere in the middle; in fact basketball is much like the Liberal Democrats as its followers is spread out thinly on many countries, with only relatively few and either insignificant, or small, or both "strongholds". –HTD 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What football? Because American Football is certainly less global than Cricket. It certainly is not a "Minority" sport. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone suggested US football is more notable than cricket. Though HTD's point is sound--there are large parts of the world where cricket has almost zero penetration. I lived in three countries where cricket has virtually no existence--Russia, S Korea, and France.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, just a youth tournament, not for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We don't put junior tournaments on the front page. doktorb _words^deeds 14:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Entries like this are why I think we need tabs for ITN. It would fit a sports tab quite well (along with other significant junior tournaments, such as the World Junior Hockey Championship, but with limited space on the current template, alas, there is no room for such entries. Resolute 14:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a place for such entries. It's the Portal:Current events, which is linked on the main page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not a major tournament/sport that a lot of people around the world would know about, not for ITN. --Activism1234 15:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Oppose - The under nineteen whatever isn't really much popular. It isn't of global importance and is known to only a few. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose - Cricket is plainly of international interest and importance. Under-19 sport, however, is almost inevitably not so. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16th Summit of the Non Aligned Movement

Nominator's comments: Consisting of 120 member states, and 21 observer countries which represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population, it is the most important gathering of the Developing Countries. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - yes, an important summit, and has many of the world's officials (although many are low level representatives). But it seems like nearly every month or so there's another world summit with most of the world attending, whether it's on the environment, nuclear weapons, or terrorism, and this one doesn't seem to have a specific agenda that makes it stand out so much. Also isn't making top headlines right now. --Activism1234 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support: Notability is already satisfied as it is an ITNR item. Have fixed the nom to indicate this. The article is way above minimum threshold required, so no argument there as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, looks like it was only recently added to ITNR by User:Wakari07 and while a discussion has been opened, it hasnt been conlcuded. So here are the reasons why it is notable despite NAM having lost relevance in international relations: (1.) 50 countries participating, almost all represented by heads of state. (2.) Highly notable as it is being hosted by Axis of Evil member Iran who has invited both the Hamas PM and the PLO leader to represent Palestine and had initially cancelled the invitation to Saudi Arabia, but now their Sy. Foreign Minister is attending. (3.) UN Secretary General attending summit despite call from US and Israel to boycott and is expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program. (4.) Indian and Pak PM are expected to meet at sidelines. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, since the conclusions of this summit are more significant.Egeymi (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article should be much more neutral without exclusively focusing on Iran (See "Importance" section of the article). It is a summit of fifty countries, not only of Iran.Egeymi (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to a spokesman of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of the Non-Aligned Movement's 120 member and 17 observer state body, some 50 nations will participate. Attendance at the highest level includes 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime ministers, 9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys. I think it is not usual that too many leaders gather during the year. There are few gathering which can be compared with this one. In addition, if death of one of these leaders is deserved enough to be mentioned in the main page page, it is strange not to mention their gathering while they are alive. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, important multinational conference. However, it might be worth waiting until announcing the end of the conference, when either major announcements mightt be worth incorporating into the blurb, or at least the reader following the link will have substantive information about what has been discussed/resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting the conclusion, where eventual important decisions can be incorporated into the blurb. --Tone 12:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Very minimal news coverage (e.g. nowhere on the BBC website). Just seems to be a bunch of leaders getting together for some photo ops and speeches without real policy. Would change if there's a significant development at the conference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle but agree with Tone. This is a postable summit, but we only want to post it once, which we should do if something earth-shattering comes out of it. If that doesn't happen, then we can post the fact that it has wrapped up. Formerip (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The main part of the event is 30 and 31 August, when the leaders will gather. So we can postpone this debate to 30 August.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose wake me up when one of these summits actually accomplishes something. Hot Stop 14:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, do you oppose posting any summit on a routine basis? —WFC— 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- The only thing that makes this summit any less notable than other big ones is the US opposition to it, but detracting from the summit because of that would be POV. This is far more notable than G20, which is ITNR but has far less attendees. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support The interactions between these countries is significant, particularly given the presecence of a number of major oil producers. "Weak" because while a lack of interest from the US, EU and China does not automatically make something non-notable, there is an obvious effect on the level of coverage. —WFC— 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this and almost all summits unless there is some notable event other than room service. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Due to the fact that the main days of summits are 30 and 31 August and the major decisions will made at that time, the subject is per-mature now. Therefor I accept that it is not a good decision to put the article on the main page before 30th.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marked ready, min. update met.Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to disagree, but I don't see it's ready, as we have 4 opposing and 5 supporting, and 3 others saying we should wait until a notable decision is made at the conference. Not something I'm going to relentlessly pursue further, but just felt that I should mention this. --Activism1234 05:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I don't think any admin is going to post this right away. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Wait to see if anything concrete comes of this. If not we can post the closing. I don't see the point in posting the opening: if the summit is significant enough for an ITN posting it will be as a result of concrete actions or resolutions being agreed, not simply by virtue of having taken place. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

[Posted] China bus and tanker collision

• Support - making sufficient (close to top) coverage on outlets like BBC, also death toll is pretty high, we haven't had a lot of crashes recently that resulted in this many deaths, and it's in China. I'll go ahead and start an article, regardless of whether it makes it to ITN. --Activism1234 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created article - feel free to update it - 2012 Chinese bus-tanker crash --Activism1234 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - worst accident in Chinese history since a fire on an overcrowded bus last year kill 41 people. This is mentioned in the article as well. --Activism1234 06:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we please try to avoid creating articles on events like this where there may be short term notarity but no long-term notability. I dunno if there's articles like "2012 transportation accidents" or something where this ITN-worthy event should be covered, but presuming long-term notability is very premature here. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article updation : Notable event but article needs to be updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the article here and changed the info in the ITN template to updated. Feel free to add any more info. A map would be useful, but don't know what infobox template to put. --Activism1234 06:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, notable and suitable for ITN. Egeymi (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry, but this is nothing more than a tragic routine traffic accident. It's on the front page of major outlets websites. So what? We space is cheap. Is it on the front page of the print edition? Even if it is, so what? Cars drive on the road and crash just like rivers flood during a monsoon. It's not news. --IP98 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- This is not a routine traffic accident. Thirty-six people died because of this crash, which involved a methanol tanker. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Death toll is high.Regards, theTigerKing  16:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is currently a little too short, IMO. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support After update. High Death toll, and major news in China (You know, China - one of the worlds fastest growing countries in various theatres?) I cannot believe that someone would oppose this because the western media gave it no attention. Unbelievable. It seems stories such as the non-news sensationalist story of the shooting in NYC is what some people will only support when it comes to incidents involving deaths. This "Not relevent in my country, don't care! Can't see it on the front page, don't care!" mentality is REALLY annoying. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to find more info on it... I added an infobox though. --Activism1234 21:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I didn't oppose this because the western media didn't give it any attention. In fact, "front page of BBC.com" was used as a grounds for support, which I was challenging. How is this incident any different from monsoon floods? --IP98 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well actually I did nominate the monsoon rains in India/Pakistan (got rejected though), but I think a difference here is that this is a road accident in China with a high death toll. --Activism1234 21:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in a country with 85000 kilometers of highway and 1.1 billion people, does it make sense that 36 deaths in a highway accident is totally mundane and insignificant? --IP98 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have not posted accidents of a similar scale before, and this is neither going to have huge readership interest nor will it showcase a worthy article. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...this is neither going to have huge readership interest..." False. 36 people dead in a single motor vehicle accident will easily capture a reader's attention. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"False", eh? The bus crash article peaked at 447 views three days ago [19] while the article on Phyllis Diller got over 6,000 views yesterday and got ~250,000 on each of the two days after her death was announced. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Regardless of where it happened, it's a high death toll for a single accident, and it's pretty rare. We've posted at least one accident like these before, and we posted the 39 deaths in the Colombian refinery, so we're not out of line if we post it. The article is in good shape and is entirely sourced, so we should be okay to post. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The significance of the refinery fire isn't the causalities, but the incident itself. Refineries don't explode all that often. On the other hand, tanker trucks crash and burn all the time, like this one from yesterday. It's simply not news, and we're not a death ticker. --IP98 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted per consensus. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus"? In other words, in spite of the evidence just given? μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but with all due respect, I see 6 support votes (7 if you count Chocolate) and only 2 oppose votes. I think Borg was right to post this. I'm sure that the number of readers will peak significantly when this is posted as well. --Activism1234 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize, it's no skin off my ass. But we've had plenty of other bus accidents that weren't posted, and had a train crash in Belgium that killed two people be posted. It will be interesting to see what kind of boost this will give the stub after 3 days in a row of less than 250 views on average. I think BorgQueen's "consensus" speaks volumes. In other words all the rationales besides votes (actual reader interest, an actually good article) have failed. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fail The article is a few paragraphs and will never be anything more. It had it's 15 minutes of fame, but the investigation won't. Neither will the findings. This was a totally mundane transportation accident, and a day of front page wikipedia coverage has not generated any significant interest in the article. Wikiproject China has not even bothered to give it an importance or quality rating. I support BorgQueen posting, since there was consensus to post, but I can't for the life of me understand why. I hope this nom serves as a reminder for years to come that traffic accidents are not news. --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]