2014 Ibb bombing

Nominator's comments: Significant number of deaths, coverage around the world. --Everymorning talk 13:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - indeed significant number of deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant amount of deaths and garnering a large amount of coverage. Andise1 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the others. Neljack (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, the article is mainly the reactions to the attack, massive swaths of quotation etc. It's still a stub but subtract the quotes and you have a mega stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, event with many deaths, but I would wait a bit for the article to be expanded some. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps a broader militant jihad category for ongoing ISIL, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda massacres would be more neutral and encompassing? μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but expansion is needed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Run-of-the-mill bombing. These are frequent in this region. There is nothing significant about this one. The article is not sufficient to be posted on the main page. WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 23:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Edward Herrmann

[Posted] Shanghai New Year crush

 The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In a time of year that's intended for leisure and festivities, this seems like an awfully grim story to post onto en.wiki's front page. Perhaps some discretion should be used?--WaltCip (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, it's grim. But it's news. Are we now looking to censor the front page to avoid upsetting people at Christmas? How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The sadness of a story is no reason to overlook it, even during the festive season. The Boxing Day tsunami was extremely sad, but I don't think we would have served our readers well by declining to feature it for the that reason. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, getting back to the suitability for ITN this has, this is a very sad incident with many deaths, probably to be reported on much more. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - once in a sufficient condition to meet ITN requirements: Despite the number of such gatherings at this time of year and the numbers of people attending, such accidents are quite rare. Mjroots (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that this might have been something that some pranksters initiated by throwing fake cash or offers of it from atop a nearby building. [8]. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Miyagawa (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clearly notable stampede. Post.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is a stampede, not a "crush" and not particularly notable for a stampede, however horrible for the victims and their families. Unless it leads to some legal consequence it has no encyclopedic importance. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it is notable, but only if someone gets the word 'Crush' out of the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me. If it were a terrorist event, or something else with political ramifications, then I'd probably have a different opinion. However, since this is probably going to be posted anyway, I'd support the use of the word 'crunch' as opposed to 'stampede.' I don't see how the former is disrespectful, and it strikes me as more accurate than 'stampede;' although that word in such a context is probably more familiar to American users, I'd rather go for a more descriptive and accurate term.-RHM22 (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have also added a bit about the Fake currency from a Reuters article. I guess maybe it could be added to the blurb? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based mainly on article quality, but also because I think it would be good for ITN to make a resolution to be less deathy during 2015. Agree that "stampede" would be a bit insensitive. Formerip (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. Event seems notable enough though, this sort of thing doesn't happen often. There shouldn't, however, be any censorship of this based on what the event is. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Front page news on international news sites. High death toll. Not sure why we should try and make bad news look nicer. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Partly as a counter to EWP's perceived Anglo-European-centrism. Re terminology, I note that our article on the Khodynka Tragedy begins, "The Khodynka Tragedy was a human stampede...." IMO, the phrase human stampede best describes what happened (on a smaller but no less tragic scale) in Shanghai. Sca (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as long as the article is improved. Mass fatalities like this at New Year's events are unusual enough to begin with—I don't think anything like this has ever happened at Times or Red Square. Having it occur in the main tourist area of the largest city of the world's most populous country exponentially increases its news value. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin note: Consensus is safely established for posting, and discussions on tangents aren't very helpful. What's needed is an expansion of the article, then this can be posted. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un-marking as ready. Article still needs expansion. What's there is a goo start, but I'd like to have something a bit more substantial to post. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an insult to the article creators, calling their work "goo". :P --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admin note I'd still like to know why discussions regarding the wording of the blurb are 'irrelevant' or tangential. The choice of which blurb to use (assuming one of two suggested is chosen) seems quite relevant to this discussion. I have no interest in changing the title of the article, nor am I suggesting that here, so I'd prefer that my suggestions regarding the blurb (and not the article title) not be condensed along with some of the other, unrelated comment strings above. After all, no one has even proposed a blurb using the word 'stampede,' so I'm uncertain how that's been definitively decided.-RHM22 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • What something like at least 35 people are pressed to death in a Shanghai crowd of revelers. Or at least 35 die from compression in a Shanghai New Year's celebration/party or something like that. Those sound like they probably just couldn't breathe and didn't die from mangling. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @RHM22: Respectfully, I collapsed it because the quality of the discussion seemed to be deteriorating and because nothing is happening until the article is improved. Perhaps you could add a suggestion to to the nomination template? Generally, the posting admin will use their discretion on the blurb, and it will be tweaked by other admins or via WP:ERRORS as necessary once it's up. To use an analogy, I'd rather get the wheel re-invented first, and worry about what to call it later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @HJ Mitchell: Thank you for the explanation; I did add an alternative blurb, which was mentioned in the collapsed portion.-RHM22 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a significant event given the amount of deaths, the world-relevant location, and international media coverage. I think that the article has been improved enough to post. Mamyles (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As a contributor of the article, I think the article is now ready to be posted. I've suggested alt2 and marked it as updated. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 04:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Article is still not in great shape, but I'd say it's just about acceptable. I've tried to accommodate everyone with the blurb, but suggestions for improvement are welcome at WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Post€d] Lithuania adopts the euro

Article: Lithuania and the euro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lithuania becomes the 19th member of the Eurozone. (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

• Nominated by FormerIP (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 Formerip (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once it becomes official. -- Calidum 19:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, that's at 10 pm UTC. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A country changing its currency seems notable to me, but I wonder if we have posted any other steps in the process(such as them being approved to do so) or other countries doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure you can find out the answer to this if you can be bothered to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't want to be helpful(which is perfectly fine for anyone to be), you could just say nothing. I wasn't even really asking for help, more posting a thought. I'm well aware of how to find something like that out. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree that this seems notable, and it is also receiving significant coverage around the world. I think that given both of these criteria, whether or not we posted other countries entering the eurozone is of little relevance. Mamyles (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article isn't brilliant but sufficient enough to carry an ITN story. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think the coverage and the notability of the change would seem sufficient to carry on ITN. Miyagawa (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable. Covered by world media.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Post€d. Happy n€w y€ar! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] New Year's Honours

[Closed] RD: Christine Cavanaugh

[Closed] Palestinian draft resolution fails in U.N. council

[Posted] RD: Luise Rainer

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support highly notable, article is in quite good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly the most famous death of the month, after Joe Cocker.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think could be in Template:In the news. ArionEstar (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable actress, article in decent shape. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Would have actually nominated her myself - definitely notable, article is in good shape. Challenger l (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD and article is in fine shape for posting. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable enough for RD. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - deserves a blurb for being the first person to win back-to-back Academy Awards...--Stemoc 06:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typically blurbs are only posted for deaths where the death itself is an event, usually (but not always) a surprising death, or when the person was essentially at the tip-top of their field. I don't think either applies in this case. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] December 2014 Cameroon clashes

Nominator's comments: An escalation of Boko Haram incursions into Cameroon, threatening to further destabilize the region. --Catlemur (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - escalation of Boko haram terrorism.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in light of the death toll and potential for destabilisation. Neljack (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from a quick read it appears that this is an ongoing issue, should this really be an "ongoing" nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were pushed out of Cameroon.The issue is ongoing only in Nigeria, with occasional small scale raids into Cameroon (this one is probably the biggest so far).--Catlemur (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant death toll and implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is an clear escalation.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Strike Eagle. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've un-marked this as ready for the time being. I think more discussion is needed. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more support since you unmarked it. Just to re-mark ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral and I've linked the December 2014 Cameroon clashes article as bolded "83 people are killed" to properly feature the "Updated article" nominated. Mamyles (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update:An estimated 1,000 militants took part in the clashes.--Catlemur (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — a very significant development that warrants being on the main page. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: The article's a bit short, and a few more comments would be welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. While perhaps shorter than I would prefer, the article meets minimum criteria. Spencer^T♦C 22:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Large expansion to Beijing Subway

NATO ends ISAF

 --Jenda H. (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support Historical event, just one orange-tagged section needs fixing. Brandmeister^talk 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article improvements per Brandmeister. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Big story, truly in the news, and international importance. Article needs that fix up and tag pull. Jusdafax 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the end of a war is truly of international significance. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The war hasn't ended yet. It says that ISAF ended its war cooperation in Afghanistan. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "President Obama Marks Formal End of War in Afghanistan" [13]; it's being phrased that way. The Korean War is considered over even though the US still has troops there. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Who takes his word seriously? George Ho (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether you or anyone take him seriously is irrelevant; it is what it is. Most RS are phrasing this as the war being over. The troops remaining are not there to conduct a war. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• May 1, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld declares the end of "major combat operations" in Afghanistan. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not talking about combat operations- in fact, most troops are actually gone now. Again, whether you believe those saying this is over or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly a big event with immense strategic implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One of the longest war coalitions in modern history officially drawing to a close. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wait until orange-tagged missing references are resolved on both bolded articles. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per all above. This is modern history.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Jenda H., are you nominating one or both articles? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ISAF article is more accurate. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb two. Notable, very notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - important historical war ends. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no treaty, armistice or other relevant development, just an announcement. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blurb doesn't imply any truce or ceasefire, it's just that ISAF has been a combatant in this war for 13 years and is now withdrawing. Brandmeister^talk 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't complaining about the blurb, but about the non-story. The Taliban is strong and resurgent, with the recent attack on the Pakistani school, Posting this would be like posting a superbowl headline, in overtime, loosing team takes ball and goes home. Of course that would probably be more newsworthy than an "end" of operations in Afghanistan. There's also the fact that other than here I haven't even seen the headline. Then look at our end of operations in Iraq. This is a policy announcement, not an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Truly an international story. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a few dead links could be fixed up, but clear consensus to post and an impressive article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support An important historical event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing the ready tag; neither article appears to have been significantly updated, and the War in Afghanistan article has some very prominent fact tags. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] MS Norman Atlantic

Article: MS Norman Atlantic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ten people are killed as the Italian ferry Norman Atlantic (pictured), carrying 466 people, catches fire in the Adriatic Sea. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Online, BBC News Online
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DetailMan2012 (talk · give credit) and Kiwipat (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 --Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for more information. Hard to judge its worthiness without some details. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest is that one person died, ferry under tow to an Albanian port. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News is reporting the rescue effort is complete, but 7 people have died. Bob talk 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to 8 as per BBC News. Bob talk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official death toll has now risen to 10, but still some discrepancy between passenger manifest and survivor count. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - With thanks to the nominator, but this does not appear to be developing into a major disaster worthy of coverage with a blurb here. Jusdafax 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be a "major disaster"? Surely the successful rescue of around 480 people is just as newsworthy? Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a more just world, it would be. Sadly the reality is that this is out of the headlines pretty much already, whereas if it had sunk with mass loss of life it would dominate the news for weeks as did the Costa Concordia, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose interesting, but not ITN-worthy, as usual it's a good candidate for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While it's good many people were rescued, that also means it dropped out of the news. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The last major ferry disaster, the one in Korea, appeared benign in the first few hours but soon turned very deadly as they could not mount an effective rescue effort. Here, while the numbers of affected people are about the same, the rescue efforts are much more organized/larger in scale, and so far out from the initial event, only one affirmed death, and it doesn't seem likely that the death toll will go much higher. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. At least in the UK, this was quite heavily featured in the news, and rescuing 480 people from a burning ship in very bad weather seems quite an achievement. Not sure why only events causing x amount of deaths would only be considered of interest to Wikipedia readers. After all, ITN included the Chilean miners. Bob talk 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Might have been a major fire, but at the end of the day, one person died after jumping off, while others are said to be safe. Unless the rescue efforts had some daredevil stunts, I'd say this is as non-newsworthy as last weeks Sydney incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The fact that almost all the passengers have been rescued makes it rather trivial. And as Rsrikanth05 points out, can be posted if the rescuers perform some Rajini style stunts.. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is a well-edited article about an interesting (though admittedly not groundbreaking) recent event. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is receiving coverage in the US and seems noteworthy enough for someone to want to come here to check on it. Dismas|^(talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Minor news, no WP:LASTING historical or encyclopaedic impact. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING seems to be more relevant to the existence of the article, which isn't what is being discussed here. People can also have good faith differences about what constitutes "encyclopedic impact"; obviously the nominator feels it does. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have an article on a news story per NOTNEWS, LASTING, whatever, ITN should not be including that stor just because it is otherwise in the news. (Please note: I'm not saying this necessarily applies to the article here in this case - as most major mass transit/transportation accidents with death tolls get articles on WP). --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a crystal ball to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). 331dot (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ships sink. Of many kinds. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and unless the manner of sinking is significant, or the people onboard are significant, or the ship itself is significant, the sinking is not significant. None of those apply here. Fire breaks out on run-of-the-mill ferry in rough seas. Again, what else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I oppose posting it to ITN, but I think the article has merit. As I said, you are free to nominate it for deletion if you feel it does not merit an article. As Mjroots said it is far too early to know if LASTING applies here. Neither one of us knows. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are talking about deletion. I never used the word "deletion". I merely took advantage of one of the event criteria, as a way of demonstrating my reasons for opposing posting it to ITN. It isn't too early at all. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about deletion because WP:LASTING or any other notability issues are issues to be dealt with in a deletion discussion discussing the existence of the article. If a deletion discussion is open, that is certainly an issue here. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very likely to survive an AfD nomination. Mjroots (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one even suggested an AfD nomination, so I don't understand why this is being discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am saying you should suggest one as the proper venue for your views. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the page deleted, so how is that my "view"? I merely don't want it posted to ITN. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cited notability issues like WP:LASTING with this subject and said it had no "encyclopedic impact", which I presume means that you don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia. If that is wrong, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"People die. What else is new"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I wouldn't exactly call this minor, but I understand the hesitation. It's not as significant as an airplane crash (which we normally post), but it's more significant than a bus crash (which we usually don't). Death toll in the (low) double-digits, plus a sizable and mostly successful rescue operation. I say post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I say post. Per the sizable rescue efforts, media attention and still a few deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's been very much in the news, and it's a sizable rescue operation. We've btw posted a similar story (burning ship in that area) a few years ago, though that rescue operation had greater success. Narayanese (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm boldly marking this as ready. I think that there is enough support to override the objectors (reasons, not quantity). The article itself is in a good shape. Needs an independent review and a decision. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. This should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose — Although it's been a dramatic story, I have to agree with those who oppose this as lacking sufficient significance on the global scale of events. (Anyhow, it's all over but the shouting.) Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I think the death of two salvage workers, after all the surviving passengers had been rescued, increases the notability of this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it seems like they carried a high number of illegal immigrants that are still uncounted for. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. I agree that the support overcomes the opposition by strength of argument even if not numerical superiority. I note that several of the opposes were made while the story was still breaking, and that the story has—possibly against expectations—continued to develop since then, which appears to be the reason that the majority of the more recent comments are in support of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull obviously no consensus, and 10 deaths in a ferry accident is rather small, considering their frequency and number of passengers. Very similar to the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment which was rightfully not posted. There's no indication of any log term effects beyond the deaths, like a criminal prosecution or bankruptcy. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I did post support of this above, I agree with Medeis that (in the future) it is preferable to wait for stronger consensus, even if that means a blurb does not get posted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a full two days of discussion, story development, and article development. I marked the story as "ready" to give indicate that it eas time for a decision to be made. Consensus is not merely a !vote count. The strength of the arguments for and against posting should be taken in to account. The first comment was "Wait", I had no problem with that. Waiting was the correct thing to do in this case. We waited, the situation became clearer, the article made it to the MP. Had HJ Mitchell said the the article was not to be posted, then I would have accepted his decision without whining about it. Editors must realise that there are some you win, some you lose; and move on whichever way the result goes. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting Support, this seems like an event notable enough for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Support, reported all round the world and certainly notable enough for ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support. Major story that has garnered international interest. There is no minimum death threshold for ITN postings. -- Calidum 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501

Article: Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured) goes missing en route to Juanda International Airport in Malaysia (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured) goes missing en route to Singapore with 162 passengers and crew aboard.
News source(s): CBC, NBC News and others
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Ktr101 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by OhanaUnited (talk · give credit)

 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after expansion, surprised I haven't heard about this yet here in the US. Very likely to be a big story, but wait for a bit of expansion before posting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support upon expansion. We don't need to rush to post this, but once we get enough information I think this merits posting. 331dot (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Moved page from AirAsia Flight 8501 to Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Updated blurb. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when the article is better updated/expanded. Note I also proposed the altblurb, which states how many are aboard the plane. Also, the blurb proposed here says the destination was Malaysia, but the article and sources say Singapore. -- Calidum 04:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call, as I accidentally wrote the wrong nation in the hook, and was unsure of whether passengers should be added. Thanks for correcting that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, that's the origin airport (in Indonesia), not the destination airport. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alternative blurb. Article needs some working on. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alt blurb ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alternative blurb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think we're waiting for the plane to be found, and the article looks ready to me. Anyone agree/disagree? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. It has gone missing. My concern earlier was the length of the article. It was only 1000 odd characters, but now it looks ready to hit the main page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Thanks to everyone for the quick improvements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I presume this will be re-blurbed and bumped to the top when the plane is found. Hopefully this won't turn out to be another Flight 370 scenario. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Debris and a body have been sighted [14]; once confirmed as being from the plane this will need to be updated. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia's search and rescue agency head has said they are 95% sure the debris is from the plane. [15] 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[16]. Think we should update the blurb to state that "Wreckage of the missing Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured), carrying over 160 people, is found in the Java Sea in Indonesia." --MASEM (t) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the blurb was updated today through a message on WP:ERRORS. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted (Ongoing)] 2014 Southeast Asian floods

 --Muffin Wizard 09:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it appears this started over two weeks ago, perhaps "ongoing" is a better bet? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree with that. :) ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 01:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think this should be posted. It is an ongoing event.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Given the substantial impact, I would support posting this in the ongoing events section. Mamyles (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in the ongoing section. Significant evacuations and coverage. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added this to the ongoing section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we normally link to articles written almost entirely in broken English? I've done my best to tidy this one, but some of it was barely decipherable. —David Levy 22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements, David Levy. I've added your name to the updater list above. Mamyles (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I apologize for not noticing those issues. I did see that the article was well referenced, and I was a little blinded by that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, and especially to David Levy for making copy-edit to the article. ~ Muffin Wizard ^;) 00:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Tomaž Šalamun

 --Tone 17:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article reasonably filled out. Spencer^T♦C 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is not a field I'm familiar with nor a culture, but the article is reasonably complete and the external links helpful. One major failing as of this posting: no death section or information of any kind. Jusdafax 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reading the article he seems to meet DC2, but as Jusdafax says some information on the passing would help(if possible). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are no reports on the reason of death, I checked several sources. I don't think more information will appear. --Tone 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with what is there now, especially if it seems unlikely more information will come out. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose but simply because the person in question isn't really "in the news", perhaps telling that we have no sources in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [17] This is from the Slovakian equivalent of the US's NPR. Not getting any English hits but should not be a show stopper as long as we can write it in English. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, if that's the best we can do for RS, then forget this nomination altogether. That link has about a hundred adverts and a few words on the subject matter. Poor work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems that the international media have picked up the news now. Huffington post, among others. Some sources added above, both in Slovene and English. Ready? --Tone 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - clearlt notable enough for RD mention. post.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets the criteria for inclusion in RD. This is ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Six-party agreement on budget (averted crisis and snap election)

[Posted] RD: Leo Tindemans

 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the merits, though the article could use more detail. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - no major problems with article. Notable enough person for RD. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - took a look at this article when I heard of his death and there wasn't a reference in sight. Much improved now. Notability clear. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - notable enough for RD. definitely.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] December 2014 Assam violence

Nominator's comments: More than 80 people selectively killed makes it a very significant event. Widely reported in India and internationally as well. Please note that the blurb can be modified if it seems badly written. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Extremely significant event, with an unfortunate number of casualties. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable, The massacre got significant coverage. Both blurbs OK. Faizan 16:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as government of India intensified counterattack and large number of casualties. And please link the article in blurb, there is no link to December 2014 Assam violence article. -Nizil (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This meets the threshold for a newsworthy event. I'm leaning more toward the second blurb, but either is fine. I agree with Nizil Shah that the December 2014 Assam violence article should be linked. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it is linked. Millitant attack in 1, and are killed by Bodo millitants in 2. --17:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05 I've linked the article after they raised it! :) Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)`[reply]

• Support, notable ongoing attack with many casualties. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is a widely-reported event. But agree with Strike Eagle that the blurb needs fixing. In particular, can we replace 'native tribals' with the name of the actual tribe affected, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Newsworthy event. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted main blurb as the second is factually inaccurate (not all dead are tribal people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Ryall

 doktorb _words^deeds 08:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, article with unreferenced personal life section going to RD? I don't think so. per TRM. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose simply as he doesn't appear to be top of his field. The BBC had to tell us that he was in a Harry Potter movie, just to make sure we knew who he was. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He's a TV actor from the BBC - no accolades, no awards, and an orange maintenance tag up top. Nope. Challenger l (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gleb Yakunin

 --Bruzaholm (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Support major dissident, reformer and politician, but article needs more reference work. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support I believe that he is of great significance in Russia. However, after reading both his article and the cited news source, I am not confident that he has significant recognition abroad. Nonetheless, his achievements/contributions are interesting and could be interpreted as being on-par with other recent names in the RD space. Mamyles (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamyles: Just FYI, though often helpful, there doesn't have to be recognition from abroad as long as the person meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to criticize you, but just to make it clear, the guidelines above address this: "please do not...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post..." Your statement was obviously in good faith, and you were not complaining, but the spirit of the guideline is clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Fair point, thank you. I will keep that in mind when considering future RD nominations. (As an aside, I'm surprised at the limited number of submissions for RD given the liberal criteria.) Mamyles (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upon article work per Medeis. Seems important to Russia. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, 1. He may be of importance in Russia, but I doubt he has any elsewhere. 2. His death was not a surprise (the article states that he suffered from an illness for a while before his death at 80 years old). 3. The article is not in a very good state, it doesn't have enough inline citations for verifying things like his early life and his wife and children. All of this combined tells me he shouldn't have a place at RD. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @AmaryllisGardener: Please read my and Medeis' posts above; the fact that this relates only to Russia is immaterial to the nomination. Also, RD is for deaths that are not surprises. 331dot (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @331dot: I read your discussion, and I said he "may" be of importance in Russia, I'm not sure of that, even. The not-surprising death is not a big thing, it just adds to my list. The most important one is number three. The article needs a bit of expanding also, IMO. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The not surprising death is why we have RD. Surprising deaths get full blurbs. Yakunin, a well known cleric, dissident, and reform politician certainly meets the prima facie requirements for an RD listing. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. But like I just said above, not the biggest concern of mine. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - after improved article work by Medeis. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. Per Medeis or by Medeis? JackofOz and Любослов Езыкин, among others, are fluent in proper Russian, I am not, and it is close to bedtime for me. I can look at English sources tomorrow if I am not busy in the real world. My Christmas guests are arriving Sunday. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article sourcing is very weak (roughly 80% unsourced). I would need to see a lot better sourcing than that to consider supporting or posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me emphasize that (1) I am at my parents' in the New Jersey Pine Barrens for the week, and the DSL has been off 80% of the time, and (2) I am babysitting three children under 10 years of age, so I am quite busy, too busy to get to this article myself before it will be stale. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose article is inadequately sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I see next to no sources for the entire article. Challenger l (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Ratna

Nominator's comments: The recipients would be conferred the award in-person in a customary Presidential ceremony in January/February next year. They have been awarded officially by the President of India. ^[1] Regards, theTigerKing  17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason- Rarely awarded + Prominent people (Not necessarily Indians) awarded/conferred with the title. Regards, theTigerKing  18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Would be better to post it in January/February when they are awarded by the President. Mere announcement doesn't merit a ITN..Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Since they have been already awarded. The Indian Government rarely awards them...so they are pretty covered. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have been awarded actually ^[2].

• We don't usually post other countries' highest civilian awards, do we? I'm too lazy to check the archives, but I don't remember any off the top of my head. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was in discussion last time also. But it made to ITN :) Regards, theTigerKing  18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they are very scarcely awarded...45 in 60 years.....so they are extensively covered whenever awarded.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would move this suggestion to an ITNR thread as we have seen such arguments coming up while taking up the case of Bharat Ratna for ITN-R.Regards, theTigerKing  18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - While it's true that we do not often post other country's awards, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, it is a good point that this award is significantly less awarded and therefore is deserving of special attention. Mamyles (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Even though singular countries' awards are rarely reported, this is an award rarely bestowed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither the nom nor the blurb explains what for. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, the blurb should have a brief summary of this. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a bit patronising to ask the blurb to explain the significance of a linked article, after all if you don't know what the Sakharov Prize or Crafoord Prize is, then norm is to click on the link. The blurb is supposed to be snappy, and usually doesn't include a "brief summary" of the news item in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those other two awards have a more narrow consideration of what might be selected, while a "civilian award" is far too broad. Irregardless, I do think any award given to a person or group of persons, even the Nobel, should try to briefly explain the reason for the award at ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant and notable award.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE wtf? Why is a civilian award notable? 2 people got it last year. Why is a NATIONAL civilian award notable? The article doesn't even explain what did these 2 dudes get it for, nor deos the blurb. Why not post China's awards? Russia's? USA's? Absolutely nobody outside of India is reporting this. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, these two dudes. WTF. However, I still don't know what that Obama dude or Bush dude did to get a Nobel, or be Time POTY. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a civilian award in any way less notable than a military one? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I'm afraid I am a bit suspicious of the motive behind this award. The lead of the award's article sayas that the Prime Minister nominates recipients. Looking at the two recipients, the first died in 1946, so he won't be attending the ceremony in February. But based on his wikipedia article he seems to be a worthy recipient. The second recipient however is the founder of the party that was elected to power this year. He was also the Prime Minister until the party lost power in 2004. It is very convenient that he be nominated for this award just a few months after one of his proteges comes to power. To give an American equivalent, imagine if a Republican president is elected in 2016. Then imagine that president awarding Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush with "America's highest civilian award" in December 2017. Sure the first guy is probably a worthy recipient, but is not here to actually receive it. So that just leaves us with the other guy... Would we put that on the front page of Wikipedia? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose self-congratulatory partisan action per Athomeinkobe. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportVajpayee is a living former PM who is being awarded a Bharat Ratna when he is NOT the PM as in the case of Indira Gandhi/Jawaharlal Nehru. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's a bona fide civilian award, which has been presented only a handful of times in a country with a population of over a billion. I don't really see any justification in the opposition who make basically no argument other than either straw man arguments ("suspicion over motives"? Your personal opinion regarding the motivations of the awarding panel is fascinating but entirely irrelevant in this case...) or plain nonsense (e.g. "wtf"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After taking your comments on board, I thought that perhaps I read too much into the circumstances of the award based on my own preliminary research. So I just tried a google search of "Bharat Ratna" to see what has been said about the decision, and the first two news results were:

"NDTV Vajpayee, a Bharat Ratna? Unfair"

"The man who implemented Mandal: Why VP Singh deserves the Bharat Ratna more than Vajpayee"

Granted these are opinion pieces, but it appears that at least some people who are interested in Indian politics (I am not) have concluded that this is a political move. There is no meniton of an "awarding panel" that I can find; this appears to be a decision taken solely by PM Modi. The first article listed above says "Prime Minister Modi is on a mission to carve an alternative iconography.", and the second says "Those who wanted Vajpayee honoured invariably belonged to the BJP, which, now heading the Central government, has conferred the Bharat Ratna on him."

So, with respect, I think it is not a straw man argument. But isn't India's population irrelevant? A government award given to a former leader of the ruling party at the first available opportunity looks like a sham to me, regardless of whether the country's population is a thousand or a billion. On the other hand, you could say that finding someone more worthy than your former boss is easier in a country with a population of one billion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is a political move ? Is there any policy/guidelines/precedent to support this as a reasonable criteria against displaying it on main page?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None at all that I am aware of, but I'm still new here. I'm just giving an alternate view to this whole "one in a billion" story. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should have existed when Rajiv Gandhi was given a posthumus BR. If you are going to take that NDTV piece at face value [ehich quite frankly is written by someone who has been anti BJP], then things are just going to go haywire. --12:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Bharat Ratna is awarded not frequently and both persons who received are important persons in history of India. Vajpayee is also well respected in opposition parties too. There would be controversy wherever politics is involved. -Nizil (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big award, given rarely, well reported. WP should not be checking any political motives nor is it our job to check if the recipient deserved the award. Many of the Nobel peace prizes won't find place in ITN going by that criteria. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We don't post the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor recipients, British/Commonwealth honors, etc. So why post this? -- Calidum 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see any more reason to post this than to post awards of other countries' top honours, which we don't tend to post. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on rarity: There were just awards last year? And every parliamentary term apparently gets at least one: apparently only the parliaments elected on 1967, 1977 and 2004, out of 16 general elections, didn't get to give out awards. I would've been more convinced of its rarity if they were truly sparingly awarded, not at least once by every parliamentary term. –HTD 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not seeing why we should post this top civilian award when we don't post others. It also doesn't seem that rare in terms of how often it is awarded. Further, just because the award is given to people important to India does not mean that the awarding itself is ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't post other top civilian awards? Perhaps we should, and the fact we haven't ought not to be a stick with which to beat this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am boldly marking this as Ready. Support side has given better rationales for posting and the award is seemingly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Another Indians got the nation's highest award, while the article states that the award is given "without distinction of race". Nothing unusual and we don't post other countries' highest civilian awards. Brandmeister^talk 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, what's so important about this? We don't usually post stuff like this. I see nothing ITN-worthy here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Killing of Antonio Martin

[Posted] RD: Edward Greenspan

 --Aerospeed (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for RDs, it's always helpful to give a note as to why the individual meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination reasoning: His case list is a history of crime in Canada, both white collar and violent. Peter Demeter (the longest trial in Canadian history), Conrad Black, Garth Drabinsky, Karlheinz Schreiber (a case connected to a former Prime Minister), Robert Latimer all were front page material for dailies across Canada. He suspended his practice for three months, to campaign against the return of the death penalty. Various honours in law community. A TV and radio host. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, he is one of the most known legal figures in Canada. Of contemporary legal figures in Canada, I'd say he's the most notable for law. Others are notable as politicians (PM Mulroney) or hockey (Eagleson), but pure law? He's tops. And do many lawyers get listed? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, since he is clearly notable in his field of expertise, having a considerable list of accolades in both his nation and outside of it. Challenger l (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Challenger 1. And per the fact that he is clearly notable and the article is well sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He actually died Dec. 24, so not sure why this whole discussion was listed as Dec. 23. I've posted the article as an RD, since there was no comments to the opposite. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jeremy Lloyd

Nominator's comments: Lloyd was one of the most respected comedy writers in British television, jointly responsible for writing the hit comedies Are You Being Served (and it's follow-up Grace and Favor) and Allo! Allo!. --1.121.182.7 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not significantly prominent enough to show readers his death on the Main Page, although the article is in good shape. --George Ho (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Of course, one of the most prominent English language comedy writers. 94.212.132.191 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Aside from being knighted I'm not sure what makes him very important to his field(I assume the relevant criteria). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't seem to be in the same class as Roy Clarke. Not being British I will withhold my vote. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose the article doesn't adequately demonstrate he was top of his field. And the article itself is weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. He wasn't the absolute top in his domain. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As well as his writing work for the top UK sitcoms, he may be familiar to older US readers, as he appeared in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, which was quite big in its day. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. He's definitely had a significant presence in British sitcoms, but the article is very bare-bones, doing very little besides describing a few bullet points of his career. Challenger l (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] K. Balachander

Nominator's comments: Recipient of India's highest film honor along with 9 National Film Awards. Please note that the article was updated by multiple users and there's no clear single majority updater. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Clearly a significant figure in Indian cinema. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the merits. Reading his article and the page describing his awards, he seems to be very important to Indian cinema. I don't know enough about that field to know if a blurb is warranted here(I would probably lean yes, though) but this should be posted in some form. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I added another blurb for this nomination. By the way, since we posted celebrities' death as blurbs this year, let's support this as well. At least it's not a Hollywood personality. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only, Oppose blurb Too minor in the broad indian cinema aka bollywood. Plus he was 84 so old age death blurbs should be reserved only for very prominent figures -- Ashish-g55 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indian cinema aka bollywood" That tells how well you know about Indian cinema and Bollywood. And, too minor? He is a recipient of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest honour for films in India. Besides, he is one of the few South Indian directors who made it big in Bollywood. —Vensatry _(ping) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me echo Vensatry's words. I'm surprised how you declared him a minor figure when you can't even differentiate Indian cinema and bollywood!! ƬheStrikeΣagle 11:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb - Appears plenty notable enough for RD; blurb candidates, in my opinion, should be mind-bogglingly notable. I don't see that here, although I'm unfamiliar with the subject and willing to be convinced otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb, notable for RD sure, but a blurb? No. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb - Agree that RD is the correct choice here. Jusdafax 02:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T♦C 17:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First launch of Angara A5

Nominator's comments: This is a first launch of the most powerful Russian rocket. 24.5 ton capability to LEO. A significant event for astronautics and an expansion of Russian capabilities. --Hektor (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support - notable enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - even though this is technically a new variant rather than a new type of rocket (and hence probably not ITN/R) - it is the largest rocket Russia has ever launched (the last time the USSR launched something bigger was Buran in 1988) - and the first time the Angara has flown to orbit. --W. D. Graham 18:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The article hasn't adequately explained recent events. It needs more updates. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose new variant of established rocket is more industry news than an encyclopedic achievement. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This article contains very brief information (one ¶) about the Angara 5 rocket, but virtually no information about the launch itself. If the launch is truly notable, then something a little more than a short list of launches would be present. Mamyles (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Internet shuts down in North Korea

[Posted] RD: Joe Cocker

Nominator's comments: Significantly well-known singer (has an OBE for his contributions). RD only as death at 70 by lung cancer. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, a major figure in rock music with a long career. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for ITN - significant contributor within the world of rock music. Not just RD but ITN mention in my opinion is warranted here.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be really hard pressed for a blurb here. He was important, yes, but he's not a Nelson Mandela or Margeret Thatcher, nor his death surprising like Robin Williams (that is, I don't think there was much about his lung cancer, but someone dying of lung cancer at 70 is not a surprise). --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but Maggie never really fitted in, in The Grease Band, did she? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]
• Support won an Oscar and a Grammy for one song. Well worth his place at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given his recognition and career. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per 331dot. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've just heard this news, and I came straight here to nominate him for RD. Absolutely top of his field, and a great loss to music. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD only. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Somebody yell at me if I've cocked it up—the markup is a lot more complicated than last time I posted something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a pain. You did it exactly right, as far as I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We will let you know if you "cocked it up on Cocker" :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support RD. He's up where he belongs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. Article in excellent shape - easily one of the most notable musicians of his genre. The circumstances of his departure do not warrant a blurb, since he was 70 and very ill. Challenger l (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Glasgow bin lorry crash

Nominator's comments: This event has been major news across the UK this week. The deaths and today's church memorial service have dominated headlines on the papers. --Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 21:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - notable incident. Quite rare. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support horrific and rare incident, road traffic accidents of such nature in the UK are unusual, but including the fact that three of the deceased were from the same family, and out Christmas shopping, a tragedy. I will pre-emptively acknowledge that this will be subject to opposition from those questioning the long-lasting impact of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if the blurb is re-worded and the concerned article is linked within it. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Yes, it has received a lot of coverage in the UK, but it's just a road traffic accident all said and done. The article is also scrappy and poorly referenced. Formerip (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• But why Should this story be posted on the front page while the Cairns Child Murders is not? They seem just as notable...94.197.120.44 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not greatly significant enough, despite disturbing nature of the topic. Also, the article is (now) inadequately referenced. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Parochial incident in one city with no WP:LASTING impact. Makes a fine tabloid shock piece, but has no encyclopaedic significance. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Road accidents with a similar death toll happen every day somewhere in the world. That this one gained more media coverage because it happened in a Western city a few days before Christmas does not make it especially notable. If it had happened in rural India, we wouldn't even have an article on it and it wouldn't have been covered in the news, except locally. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Accidents like these happen everyday at multiple places...and as Jim Michael says, this one is more covered as it happened in a Western city. Not a significant event at-all. ƬheStrikeΣagle 12:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose such accidents does not deserve to be on main page. -Nizil (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tunisian presidential election

Articles: Tunisian presidential election, 2014 (talk · history · tag) and Béji Caïd Essebsi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Béji Caïd Essebsi wins the Tunisian presidential election. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)

Both articles updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The first regular presidential election after the Tunisian Revolution and the adoption of the current Constitution, according to the article. --Brandmeister^talk 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - A presidential election is instant notability. article seems ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, both articles are currently waiting for an update. Brandmeister^talk 11:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've updated both articles, and I think the election one looks good so far. Therefore, I support. Let us see if the riots in the south develop into something serious that merits inclusion in the blurb (hopefully not). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is inherently notable because of its national nature. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – A watershed moment in Tunisia and the surrounding region. It is nice to see that the Arab Spring has not given in to disaster yet. RGloucester — ☎ 18:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Expressions of support for the merits of posting this are not required as this is ITNR. The only things to be determined are article quality and if the blurb is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with the election article bolded, as per the way we usually do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]