Jurassic turtle graveyard

Nominator's comments: Paleontology does not often make the news like this. As it is common with bio science news (cf. Fomitiporia ellipsoidea), the actual discovery happened 3 years ago, but the journal article was only published this month, and hit the mass media news just hours ago (see the Google News search). --Vmenkov (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: I would be happier if the ITN item were associated with an article on Annemys or Xinjiangchelyid, rather than the one on the geographic location. But I don't feel competent to write one. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)))Reply[reply]

P. and S. v. Poland

Nominator's comments: An abortion rights with implications for other Council of Europe member states. Seems to have received only modest Engilsh-language coverage, though, so maybe a longshot. --Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Meh. Only really big press statement due to pro- and anti-abortion activists. Lasting legal impact seems rather weak. Spencer^T♦C 08:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If the pending Irish case is likely to be decided soon then it might be worth bundling the two; this seems to be a high-level but relatively low-profile case (not seen it reported in the news, and it's the kind of thing I'd expect the likes of the BBC or The Guardian to carry). GRAPPLE X 08:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Letitia Baldrige, "Doyenne of Decorum" Recent Death

Nominator's comments: "The "Doyenne of Decorum", an early feminist, PR Director for Tiffany's, Secretary for First Lady in Kennedy White House, Head of Own PR firm, twenty books published over sixty-one years, long-running newspaper column, top of etiquette field, Cover of Time Magazine 1978, David Letterman 1985, last book 2007, death noted in major US and UK pubs. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support As nom for recent death, distinguished career, top of field, Cover of Time, death noted outside US. Should be updated okay and ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Aren't you the nominator? How can you nominate and !vote? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People "vote as nom" all the time, what's your problem? μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your support is implicit.theBOBbobato (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose At point of her death, article consisted of just 6 sentences of prose: that is an indicator of level of interest our readers/editors have in her. Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose- It's not that she's American that makes her insignificant, but that she had zero impact outside of America. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose not notable enough. Hot Stop (Edits) 22:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that she's of little impact outside America is an invalid argument per the guidelines as well as the fact that she has a small article which is totally irrelevant. She was the top etiquette writer in her field, on Time Magazine, and a whole host of other things. I am not surprised that an editorship which is overwhelmingly male and of college age will not personally be interested, but one can always hope such people can think outside their own box. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where do guidelines state that a small article is invalid grounds to oppose? You might not agree with it as a reason to oppose, but that does not invalidate it. If you read my !vote, you would realise that brevity of article was not the reason for the oppose (the reason was lack of general interest in this person), but the evidence of that reason being present (or indeed absent). Kevin McE (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What part of Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source is problematic for you? If I thought she were notable enough for a full blurb I'd have nominated her as such. But as it stands the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Businessweek, The Daily Mail, NPR, the Huffington Post, the JFK Presidential Library, the Telegraph, and Bloomberg, as well as Time Magazine all disagree with you on her notability. An objective look at the sources (frankly, I don't care one bit personally about etiqutte books, JFK, Letterman or Time Magazine) is what is called for. This is a ticker nom and she is perfectly suited for it. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where have I based an argument on trying to use Wikipedia as a reliable source? You are constantly changing the ground on which you are trying to stand. I am using Wikipedia as evidence of how much interest there is in this person to the readers of wikipedia, which is the principle for inclusion on ITN. Average page views per day in the 3 months before her death were 32. Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your claim that all these news services deem her notable is irrelevant for ITN. The threshold for posting a news story on an ordinary website is a lot different than our requirements. Otherwise, a lot of the people on this list would get posted, since they often get comparable coverage. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like whom? Twelve people a year are on the cover of Time Magazine. Fewer than 12 of them deserve a ticker listing out of the 365 or so postings to ITN? Mention one person now getting that coverage we would agree is not for the ticker? μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you'll find that there are 52, not 12, weeks in a year, and there are some people on the front cover who do not even have a Wikipedia article. Do you really think that Arlenis Sosa will be a shoe in for ITN inclusion if she lives the rest of her life quietly and dies at a ripe old age in about 2070?

My bad, will have to correct that in the article.

It was agreed that a ticker might allow the inclusion of more deaths that are in the news: it was never part of the proposal that it would open the doors to everyone who is included in the obituary columns of newspapers. When there were objections to the proposal on the grounds that it would become stale, the consistent reply was that the ticker could drop off in such times, not that the importance/interest threshhold would drop ever lower to maintain it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Not notable enough for the front page doktorb _words^deeds 09:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The underlying question is not whether a candidate is intrinsically "good enough" for the ticker or the front page in some sort of Platonic sense, but whether the item is in the news, has a good article, and won't push better candidates off. I understand that Baldrige didn't invent a first-person shooter, but she is notable, in the news, and not in competition with any better noms. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Literary great dies

• Comment: Article has a death update (quote should be translated into English), but the article as a whole is too brief. Spencer^T♦C 07:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Not notable enough doktorb _words^deeds 07:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose At point of his death, article was a stub: that is an indicator of level of interest our readers/editors have in him. Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If the article (including the bibliography) could be bought to the level of the Dutch article I'd support this for the ticker.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeSurl (talk • contribs)

But it is past the level of the Dutch article. It has more references. --86.40.99.189 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The number of references is largely irrelevant to article quality. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose not notable enough. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support for the ticker. I thought the point of the ticker, rather than full entries, was to help names like this pass to keep systemic bias in death noms to a minimum? Guy seems to be a big name in the Netherlands, after all, and the ticker's looking pretty spartan at the minute. GRAPPLE X 22:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think strict worry about updates is necessary for big articles, but this one is just a little short. A few more sentences should be easily possible. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support for the ticker once this is updated. I just spent two hours updating Letitia Baldrige, so someone else will have to do this one. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: For someone considered "one of the greats of Dutch literature", his article on the Dutch Wikipedia is rather spare. Spencer^T♦C 23:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support- Despite the size of the article, he was a pretty large literary figure. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rosneft acquires TNK-BP

suppot if RS indicated the largestcompany is resultedLihaas (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose as it sounds like while the deal to acquire is close, it is not yet finalized. It would be ITN-worthy once the acquisition is complete (any regulatory agencies need to get involved?) --MASEM (t) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support if this ever happens, but as the title of the source indicates, this is far from a done deal. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose for now. The deal is tentative, and isn't making major news. Unlike the merger noted several slots down, which is actual In The News. When the deal is finalized (like, when papers are signed) and they are actually one company, and this is blowing up all of the relevant news sites, let's revisit this. --Jayron32 00:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per the cited source, this isn't happening for a bit. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Penguin/Random House merger

Nominator's comments: Random House, Inc. is the largest general-interest trade book publisher in the world

• Support - This is a huge deal. Genuine news from the world of the book industry. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Also a significant business deal – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• oppose until clarity on what thsi creates . The world's largest publisher? Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Random House is already the world's largest publisher. Penguin is the second largest. Their merger creates a super publisher: one quarter of all books will come from these guys. --RA (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. According to BBC News yesterday, this'll account for over a quarter of book revenues, which is a staggering market share. Obviously this is a major merger. GRAPPLE X 23:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support though it would be nice to have some dollar figure on the "size" of the merge. Lacking that, Grapple's 25% of market statement would be nice to work in to emphasize the impact. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Question- I'm confused. Did one buy the other, or was it a merger? Will the new name be one of these two companies? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merger; the new company is "Penguin Random House" (per the WSJ article) --MASEM (t) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support A major business deal. Finally, some minority topics are getting attention! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This is far more significant for the domain area than Disney acquiring Lucas Film. --RA (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Completed deal, clearly in the news, articles are in a fine shape. I'm also marking "ready". Will let another admin post. --Jayron32 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Removing ready. Both articles need more of an update than what currently exists. Spencer^T♦C 07:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Specifics: In Random House, all I see is In October 2012, Bertelsmann entered into talks with rival conglomerate Pearson plc, over the possibility of combining their respective publishing companies, Penguin and Random House. The merged company would be known as Penguin Random House.[5] which doesn't go over finer specifics of the deal and is rather vague. The update in Penguin Group is almost exactly the same, and doesn't make it seem like the deal is definitive yet. Spencer^T♦C 07:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support A highly important development in the industry (and those industries both connected and competing against) doktorb _words^deeds 07:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Per GrappleX. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support already. This is massive, man! If ITN can showcase Walt Disney and Lucasfilms what's the hold-up here? It's Penguin and Random House. They'd be big enough on their own! --86.40.99.189 (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The hold up is the fact that the articles are not updated yet. Spencer^T♦C 21:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. It's a huge announcement, the world's largest publishing company is merging with the world's second largest.--xanchester (t) 11:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I've created Penguin Random House as a stub. Along with the Penguin Group and Random House articles, it needs a considerable amount of expansion.--xanchester (t) 11:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I am ready to support this on notability grounds but the referencing in both articles needs work. Please use Wikipedia:Citation templates to name the article you are referencing to and the publication where it appeared (as opposed to using bare URLs aka. Wikipedia:Embedded citations). Also, although I am not categorically opposed to referencing paywalled publications, the Financial Times citation could be probably easily replaced by a freely viewable counterpart in a non-paywalled publication. --hydrox (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Thank you if you would please highlight a possibly shrinking industry. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - A notable and important development that is ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - If this ends up not being posted due to lack of an update, we could possibly revisit this story when the merger is completed (sometime in 2013, I believe). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I seem to be in the minority, but while this would be noteworthy in a business magazine, I don't feel it would be here, at least for the ITN section. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  One quarter of all books world-wide will be published by the new group. Surely you agree that is something interesting to readers of an encyclopaedia? --RA (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Lucasfilm/Star Wars

Nominator's comments: This may be a longshot. It's not exactly hard news, but I thought it was pretty interesting nonetheless. Then again, maybe I'm just a big nerd. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support knowing that ITN normally frowns on business stories , but this is a significant shakeup in Hollywood (not to mention the billion dollar figure) which does also affect much of the rest of the world in this case. --MASEM (t) 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Tend toward weak oppose on commercial grounds, but won't vote yet. But that blurb is just too, too long. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's as short as I could think to make it, but I agree that it's a bit long. One alternative might be "The Walt Disney Company announces an agreement to purchase Lucasfilm for US$4.05 billion and produce additional Star Wars films." --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Maybe my Star Wars nerdiness is showing a little too, but I'm going to say that the sale is notable not only for the billion with a "b" price tag, but also because part of what has made Lucas so successful was that he retained the rights of Star Wars back when he first negotiated with the studio prior to production of Episode 4, more than 35 years ago. Is ILM part of the sale? I'm unclear on that. Oh yeah, and we're getting Episodes 7, 8, and 9, which brings some real ambivalence out of me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would say so, it's a subsidiary. Same goes for Lucasarts. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Weak support I like (hence weak) and think this is a suitably globally notable issue and one which is "in the news". A reasonably big purchase price, two major players in the industry, a sort-of commitment to follow up with more episodes of the most successful science fiction film franchise ever in the history of history, I'd say yay to main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support There is a massive difference between this and the Microsoft press release below. Here we have a massive corporate development featuring some of the biggest names in cinema history with consequences for more than just upcoming films. Microsoft released a new operating system that looks a bit pretty. There's no contest. I think this is 2012's biggest business event. doktorb _words^deeds 21:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Prefer proposed alt blurb. Major corporate deal, as well as the continuation of the 3rd-highest grossing film series of all time. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Obviously, these are two major companies and it involves one of the most popular movie franchases of all time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Big news for a franchise with hundreds of millions of fans worldwide. 208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Just because you dressed like Luke Skywalker or watched the little mermaid does not mean this is significant. Setting one or two film records isn't significant either. LucasFilm owns two major piece of IP, have flogged them both to death, and made some dollars. Whooop de doo. Biggest deal ever? Nope. Biggest deal in the business? Negative. Lucasfilm is just an IP owner, there isn't much changing hands. This is no more significant that T-Mobile buying metro PCS. It's a totally mundane routine business deal, and it's staggeringly not news. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nobody says it has to be record breaking to be newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support as Disney gains things like ILM, LucasArts, and the most popular franchise in movie history. Significant from a business aspect, and HIGHLY significant from a cultural aspect as Star Wars encompasses many other medias than just film, which IP98 doesn't seem to understand. --PlasmaTwa2 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get it: Films, video games, lunch pails, bed sheets, tv shows, toilet paper, action figures, etc etc etc. But it's just one property. It's star wars. It's nothing. Universal buying Disney, no brainer, but this is powered 100% by emotion. It's worthless. --IP98 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support all $1b+ takeovers. They are sufficiently uncommon and notable enough to be recurring items. -81.135.120.10 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support (edit conflict) Huge news in the entertainment world. Star Wars is a billion-dollar franchise and one of the most popular in the world. Now that it's under new ownership, Disney could ruin it, or make it better (hopefully the latter, probably the former knowing Disney). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support only the purchase (a huge acquisition); 'oppose specifically highlighting Star Wars or any other specific franchise. GRAPPLE X
• Support- This is huge news, but please don't mention Star Wars. That's being biased in choosing which franchise is most important. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Pull in light of two (and definitely one) far more significant mergers above. --RA (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not how ITN works. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post-post support Major news story, based on coverage in reliable news sources, and articles are in a decent shape, with appropriate updates. Based on what ITN is, this meets the criteria. --Jayron32 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I wish I could've commented earlier, but Sandy stopped that. Regardless, this is a pretty big story. Hot Stop (Edits) 01:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. It doesn't seem noteworthy as an ITN event, even if it is noteworthy in a business magazine or sci-fi magazine. I also agree with IP98. 331dot (talk) 6:08 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Hurricane Sandy sticky

Hurricane Sandy

Nominator's comments: Hurricane Sandy has killed 16 people in the US. Should be mentioned in ITN. --> --Lucky102 (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - If we're going to include the US death toll, let's have "...makes landfall...killing X in the United States and Canada, having previously killed Y in the Caribbean." (Checking to see if more recent figures are available for the Caribbean while we're at it.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done.--Lucky102 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support the new alt-blurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Limited support for alt blurb: better than existing text, but dead people are dead people of equal tragedy, and do not need to be subdivided by nationality. Kevin McE (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree with Kevin McE that deaths are equal, and I find the idea of subdividing by nationality troublesome. I would suggest not trying to estimate the North American deaths until the storm has passed as while the disaster is ongoing estimates are going to be very difficult to achieve. Suggest, once storm has passed, "Hurricane Sandy hits the Caribbean and North America, killing at least X" LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How about an alternate, alternate blurb as follows:
    • Hurricane Sandy causes widespread damage and loss of life in the Caribbean and eastern North America.
  • That covers our bases, doesn't emphasize any one country over another, and readers can still click the blue link to learn more. --Jayron32 12:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - I was thinking more of the time-difference between events in the Caribbean and those on the mainland; I wasn't intending a specifically national divide. I stand by my support for the alt-blurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. The effects of this have been massive. The entire metropolitan area of NY and several other cities has effectively been shut down. All mass transit is closed for at least 2 days; all bridges and tunnels to/from Manhattan and Staten island were closed; damage everywhere you look. Over 2 million people are without power. The entire financial district of Manhattan was flooded as were other districts. Several weather experts are saying this is the worst storm to hit the area in over 100 years. No, due to it being a modern country with robust disaster response resources, and that there was time to prepare, 'only' 15+ people were killed compared with over 60 in the Caribbean; but the effects in other ways are more than notable--they're historic. As far as the sticky is concerned above I am against that per WFC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Given we have damage reports, a new blurb based on that is justified. But a vaguer blurb makes no sense. Why then even change it? And being informative is not playing favorites. The US death total (18 now) seems relevant, as is the record flooding of NYC with many subways fully under water, 100 homes burnt down in Queens, the WTC site flooded and Wall Street closed for two days the first time in 100 years. But combining the death totals from events a week apart will make people think we are saying all (69+18=87) died in the US. I think something like altblurb:

Hurricane Sandy kills 69 in the Caribbean, 18 across the North East US and Canada, and causes the worst flood in New York City history.

is terse and informative. μηδείς (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe one of the mainland fatalities was in Toronto. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly support Medeis' new altblurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which blurb should I use?--Lucky102 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've reworded the blurb, but I doubt it's to anyone's liking. First, there seemed to be some desire to put more information about the storm's effects in the U.S., instead of just the fact it made landfall. There has been a lot of focus on the flooding in New York, and rightfully so for a major influential city, but the "worst flooding" claim is not actually in the article, so I didn't put that. The two things that people seem to keep repeating are in regards to (a) mentioning the loss of human life and (b) treating the Caribbean and the United States equally. For the first point, we are not compelled to mention death at every corner; it goes without saying that a storm that has caused widespread damage has killed people, and the numbers are imprecise at the moment. (Note, for example, that the suggest blurbs mention fewer than twenty people killed in the U.S.; the article puts that number above 200). So, we really don't need to mention it; the number of people killed is not the particularly notable aspect of this story, as is rarely the case when hurricanes strike developed countries. As for the second point, it struck Jamaica six days ago and effectively left the Caribbean a few days ago. Were it not for its effect on the U.S., Hurricane Sandy would be off ITN by now. There's no need to go into depth about what happened a few days ago when the story is what's happening now in the United States. (And, likewise, I've omitted Canada, as the damage does not seem to be as significant, even if not insignificant, so far north.) Keeping detail for the purpose of some supposed equality, at the expense of more pertinent information, is a terrible idea. -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Flooding in parts of NYC" is meaningless, that happens every time it rains. It was the worst flood in city history. "Widespread damage" is also meaningless, a death toll (up to 33 now) gives a much better visceral impression of the impact. Linking to East Coast of the United States is unnecessarily vague and quite inaccurate. Pennsylvania and West Virginia are not on the coast, the unaffected states of Maine, Florida, Georgia, etc., are. You have left out Canada. (Not that anybody cares?) I strongly suggest the much more accurate and informative: Hurricane Sandy kills 69 in the Caribbean, 33 across the North East US and Canada, and causes the worst flood in New York City history. (18 in the US and Canada is okay if you're worried about space.) μηδείς (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There isn't a single point you mentioned that I haven't already refuted. (Well, the U.S. death toll must have been mistakenly input into the article; it's not more than 200, but it's still not just 18.) If you have a counterpoint to anything I said, or want to fix some of the issues, then sure, but you haven't, so no. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not refuted? So you think PA and WV are on the coast, Maine and Florida were impacted, that "flooding of parts of NYC" doesn't happen all the time, and that this wasn't a historic flood? Your opinion that vagueness is preferable is not refutable since it is just that, opinion--but your facts are inadequate. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what you're telling me is it's not OK to say there was widespread damage on the "East Coast of the United States" because that includes parts where there was no damage, while it's OK to say there were people killed by this storm in the "U.S. and Canada" even though the vast majorities of those two countries never saw the storm. Okay, got it. And I don't think anyone would disagree with the suggestion that Philadelphia or Pennsylvania is on "the East Coast". Except you apparently. -- tariqabjotu 16:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Revert - There was no consensus for that change, which doesn't reflect anyone's perspective except tariqabjotu's. Can we have a civilised discussion instead of a rush to judgment, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Making changes to a blurb is generally admin's discretion. Consensus is not needed to make changes to a blurb. That being said, if there was a consensus for something else and I willfully ignored it, sure, you might have a case for forcing a change. But that's not the case; there isn't consensus here for anything, except the fact that the previous blurb needed updating. -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

let's ignore for a second, the question of the hurricane as a whole, and just look at the flooding in NYC. Does anyone dispute that had this same flooding occured without the rest of Sandy it would have made it to ITN? If so, would the blurb read "There is flooding in parts of NYC" or "There is historic flooding in NYC"? (It is indeed the worst flooding, 13.88 feet, since the cities' founding. [9][10]. Regardless of whether we think extensive damage is more informative than 33 deaths in the US and Canada, or that West Virginia is on the East Coast, can we please change the vague "including flooding in parts of New York City" to "including record flooding in New York City"? μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't like repeating myself, so I won't. You would do well, however, to read the comments you respond to. -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not sure we need to dicker about the specifics of the exact wording here. If there was widespread objection to the existing wording, it would of course need to be changed, but do we really need to fight over exactly how to describe the geographic location of the damage at this point? Whether or not the blurb is perfect, it is certainly acceptable, and well within editorial discretion. If there's a better blurb anyone has in mind, propose it, and allow people to support it or not. But don't fight and make demands that the current blurb be changed. If you have an objection to it or an alternative, lodge the objective or provide the alternative, and let the community either care or not. If the community is OK with this, there's no inherent need to press forward with any changes. To simplify: Proposing a change, leaving it for the community to decide an up or down vote, and making no further comments = useful. Arguing incessantly and repeatedly between the same two people = not useful. Decide whether you want to be useful or not useful. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's hardly fair, Jayron. I gave a detailed rationale for my blurb, which does not amount to "fighting" or insisting. Alex Tiefling supported it wholeheartedly. Yet Tariqabjotu made up his own blurb without discussion or any relation to either mine or the listed altblurb, and has just said that he's an admin, and it's his call, so there. I am quite happy to see whether others support my blurb or the one listed as altblurb. I don't see the point in my being told not to explain my reasons. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. I'm not sure how Tariqabjotu's unilateral blundering-in gets to be all over the home page. I like reasonably brisk decision-making, but can there at least be some attempt at consensus and process, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that it simply isn't possible to develop a consensus in time to have an ideal (rather than acceptable) blurb. We're working in terms of hours or less here when changes need to be made, and if we made massive changes every time one or two people objected or request a change, it would never be stable. The current blurb may not be perfect, but I'm not sure it is terribly useful to demand that it be changed based on the opinion of two people. This isn't a contest with winners and losers. Tariq doesn't get a "prize" because his text is visible and you don't suffer a "loss" because your text is not. Tariq's text is not incorrect, it isn't under widespread opposition (judged by the lack of readers who have objected at WP:ERRORS, which will generally attract some objection to just about anything). Luke's point is salient here: We still have time to develop a better blurb here, its just that there's no impending reason to take down the current blurb because it isn't wrong. Again, if your goal is merely to "win", I have no idea how to fix that problem. You're simply not going to win, because this isn't a contest. It doesn't have winners and losers. If your goal is to develop the best possible blurb, take the time to do that here on this page, and don't change anything until that's done, and if the blurb we eventually come up with is better, but not on the front page this minute that's OK. I have no objection to crafting a better blurb on this page, and then posting it. I do have objection to demanding instant change to something that isn't horrifyingly wrong. --Jayron32 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This situation has developed too rapidly for a blurb scripted a few hours prior to be that relevant. Tariqabjotu's blurb seems fine. Now that the storm's weakening, we can probably think about a "final" blurb for ITN that summarises the whole of the hurricane's impact. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support of current blurb. The situation is rapidly developing so new developments certainly could emerge that would make the current blurb obsolete, but right now it's fine.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support of current blurb Nothing is wrong with it. The worst is past us, and there won't be much else to report. The current blurb is sufficient enough. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Update made] Hurricane Sandy

Nominator's comments: This is in the news right now (check it out if you don't believe me) and the Wikipedia article is in a decent state. Given those criteria, this seems like it is main page ready. --Jayron32 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC) --Jayron32 14:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ...So just update it when the news from the East Coast becomes clear? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The blurb could be reflected that much of NYC and the eastern seaboard is shutting down this afternoon in preparation for the strike, but I think it will be better to wait to see what/if damage it does to the shoreline (eg wait until tomorrow to see what comes). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why? Isn't the article in a decent state now? There's many lines of text on the effect on the Caribbean already in the article. If and when further damage is included in the article, the blurb can be updated, but I think we have plenty here on its effects already in the Caribbean that we don't have to wait for anything to happen to the U.S. --Jayron32 14:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The point it, it is already on the main page in the ITN box, after the 40+ deaths in the Caribbean. Now it is about 3-5 hrs out from hitting the NE US seaboard, and that will likely need a blurb change if there's major effects there. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment A simple factual update and bump to the top will be justified around 8-10pm local time when the storm makes landfall. Something like Altblurb: "After killing at least 65 in the Caribbean, Hurricane Sandy makes landfall in Cape May, New Jersey" (or wherever it hits). This factual and encyclopedic, rather than sensationalist focus will avoid the the typical media obsession on New York City for a storm that will strike south of Philadelphia. Further updates can be made once the damage is clear in the following days. μηδείς (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this, although it's clear from storm surge predictions that although the eye will make landfall somewhere down the far end of NJ, the shape of the New York Bight means that NYC will have an especially rough time of it. But I do think that the purely technical update will be fine until the human impact on the mainland can be assessed more clearly. NYC is not, after all, the centre of the universe. (Everyone knows that's London, right?) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you mean the south end of NJ, not the far end. As a New Yorker I feel comfortable saying that. μηδείς (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Touché. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greenwich to be precise. --86.40.206.234 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I am an idiot. Feel free to withdraw this now. I totally didn't see it in the ITN template already. I would support an update and bump when conditions warrent, but yeah, sorry about all of that. Close this someone and someone can deliver me a whack with a medium-sized freshwater game fish at your earliest convenience. --Jayron32 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did think it was odd this seemed higher than I remembered--that's okay Jayron, it does need updating, and this should just be treated as the discussion for that. Local news here is in a panic, but I guess that goes without saying. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Update ITN should be updated now and sandy bumped up with the altblurb: "After killing at least 65 in the Caribbean, Hurricane Sandy makes landfall in Cape May County, New Jersey" [11]. I'll make sure the article reflects this. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot of edit conflicts, but the article is updated to reflect the blurb info. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support that update Just as Medeis proposed above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Done per Medeis's update. A little bit of WP:BOLD and a little more WP:IAR, but I don't forsee this being opposed on the grounds of the update. --Jayron32 01:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strongly object to current update: merely making landfall is something we would not even remotely consider posting for storms/hurricanes/typhoons anywhere else in the world. Making 65 Caribbean deaths subsidiary to the mere fact of reaching land is an appalling level of bias. We didn't even bother acknowledging the dignity of sovereign nations enough to name them in its progress through the Caribbean: now the identity of the nearest town is considered important! Also immensely disrespectful to those who have died in the US: the loss of their relatives is ignored to record the long inevitable fact of the storm reaching land. Suggest The death toll of Hurricane Sandy reaches 78 after it reaches the US. Kevin McE (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support the current update. The making landfall in the US is what is in the news right now. The current blurb also usefully discusses the Caribbean impact (a few days ago, casualties largely known) and the US impact (current, largely unknown effect) in the most succinct way I can think of. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. The effects of this have been massive. The entire metropolitan area of NY and several other cities has effectively been shut down. All mass transit is closed for at least 2 days; all bridges and tunnels to/from Manhattan and Staten island were closed; damage everywhere you look. Over 2 million people are without power. The entire financial district of Manhattan was flooded as were other districts. Several weather experts are saying this is the worst storm to hit the area in over 100 years. No, due to it being a modern country with robust disaster response resources, and that there was time to prepare, 'only' 15+ people were killed compared with over 60 in the Caribbean; but the effects in other ways are more than notable--they're historic. As far as the sticky is concerned above I am against that per WFC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] 2012 World Series

 --MASEM (t) 04:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: Definitely needs to specify that this is baseball ("In baseball, the San Francisco Giants..." would work). GRAPPLE X 04:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Can we get a quick update on Game 4 as well? It's definitely ITNR, but it would be nice if all 4 games were updated with text. --Jayron32 04:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Somewhat notable. Jusdafax 05:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - major sporting event. --Jethro B 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post Alreaday (sic). ITNR and updated. Are we waiting for a phone call from God? μηδείς (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support ITN/R (without any objection that I know of, article already updated and in pretty good shape. Should be up ASAP. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Lithuanian election

Nominator's comments: Second round is over, results are complete. Could need some lines of prose (reactions etc.) --RJFF (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support results in, ready go. --RA (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Updated: Two paragraphs of prose about the outcome and reactions have been added. The results are complete, the article is up to date. Ready to be posted? --RJFF (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 12:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukrainian election

 --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 21:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, obviously notable.Egeymi (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support- Very notable election, no update, purple disambig tag not a problem. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait for result - the results aren't in yet. Exit polls put Party of the Regions on ~28% and United Opposition Fatherland on ~25%, but the count hasn't taken place. Also, if those estimates are correct, PoR will have a "plurality", not a "majority". --RA (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Now There's no need to wait for exact results that will be updated when we have them, a link to the article as it stands now is appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Exit polls can be wrong. Image related.

  Counting is on-going, and should be completed this evening, let's wait for the result and not post based on predictions. --RA (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support when updated. An article that is not up to date cannot be featured in ITN. The incoming results are still contradictory (first exit polls showed opposition in lead, preliminary results from the electoral commission favor the governing party), the article should inform about reported irregularities, observers' comments, domestic and international reactions. --RJFF (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jorge Lorenzo

Nominator's comments: ITN/R 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support ITN/R yada yada yada... --Τασουλα (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Shouldn't it be alarming that the last 7 races don't have articles? –HTD 05:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what comes from ITNR. It should be removed as a subcategory and let all fight for their own. μηδείς (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death: Hans Werner Henze

 --doktorb _words^deeds 11:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I don't have strong feelings about the notability or non-notability of this nom, but the article seems to fall very short in sourcing. Only 5 footnotes, one of which is to Twitter and another is flagged as "not in citation given", over 20 or so paragraphs. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment If it would only be about notability, I would easily support this nomination, as Henze was a very important modern composer for sure. But the lack of footnotes is a problem. --RJFF (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• My opinion is exactly the same as RJFF. Happy to see this go up on notability grounds, if sourcing is provided. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Can someone recommend a well received or popular work or two of his? Reader interest in him is about half Barzun's according to check views. Barzun's writing is widely available. But for a musician I'd like to heaer some of the music. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

E.g. this, this or this. The number of readers might correlate with Barzun being American, or the relatively minor popularity of modern opera music. --RJFF (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Amazon has Henze's most popular work ranked 74,000 in music, with Barzun's book ranked 60. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• By the way, the article has not been adequately updated. --RJFF (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• weak support Is this going anywhere? Several comments above seem to be supports. I don't consider myself opposed. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Rakhine riots

Nominator's comments: Beyond the death toll (which already is said by some sources to be worse than June's), thousands of homes have been destroyed and many more Rohingya (Burmese Muslims) find themselves caught between the Bangladeshi and Burmese borders. As for coverage, it's currently on the front page of Al Jazeera and New York Times (though it's small on the latter); was in the top five for BBC earlier today. --Khazar2 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, nothing much to add apart from the nominator's comments. It's relevant, high death toll and a developing story. Iowafromiowa (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, as stated above notable and developing story. And it is another example of secterian conflict.Egeymi (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - This appears to be a major story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - The BBC have reported that the Burmese government has claimed responsibility for the burning of civilian properties. This rises above the background rumbling of this conflict, and is a clearly notable incident. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ready? - This one ready, then? Lots of support, 8-10 sentence sourced update. -- Khazar2 (talk)

Yes, ready. --RJFF (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posted. --Tone 21:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Hurricane Sandy

Nominator's comments: More damage and disruption is expected if/when it hits the United States, but it seems to be notable enough to post now due to the damage already inflicted in the Caribbean. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nom. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – Agree per nomination. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support All indications are this name will end up being retired. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Notable death toll, and it could grow if storm grows. Jusdafax 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Significant doktorb _words^deeds 06:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, just for ITN.Egeymi (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted. Thue (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Keep this as top story and update blurb as necessary as the situation develops, only let it drop once the storm has dissipated. This is an exceptional case of a news story being continually notable for several days. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Intellectual Jacques Barzun dies at 104

Nominator's comments: Described in the Wash Post as "one of the foremost intellectuals of the 20th century", "someone to whom experts turn for help in their fields", described in Newsweek as "one of the great one-man shows of Western letters." Academic, cultural historian, noted for scholarly comments on music and baseball, Cover of Time Magazine in 1956, Published his NYT best-selling magnum opus at 92 in 2000, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner in 2003. Knight in the French Legion of Honor, A very high quality candidate. ---- μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support as nom. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Well he was American after all, so them thinking that in New York and Washington is hardly surprising. Time 100 mainly features Americans. What does the rest of the world think of him? --86.40.98.160 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --Jayron32 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to his article, Barzun was awarded a knighthood in the French Legion of Honor. His career, spawning "dizaines d'oeuvres et d'essais sur tous les genres, allant de la philosophie aux romans noirs", is noted in France's biggest news weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, which said "il a connu un rayonnement international avec la sortie de "From dawn to decadence". As for the IP editor, what a tragedy for him not to be American, or smart enough like Barzun to move to America, where everyone gets a President Medal of Freedom for just being American. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Barzun is not especially associated with America, except for his efforts in Houser of Intellect and the like. And of course he was born French. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarifying a) I'm not anyone else in this thread, b) I meant Barzun subject matter wasn't assoc. with America, he himself is, and C) no opinion on ready or not, just corrected a typo when it was first marked so. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, very suitable for RD as suggested.Egeymi (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Sorry I am unfamiliar with him but the news reports are impressive enough to justify support. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ready There are no opposes and no tags. The article is updated. [13]. I am the nominator, but I am confident there is no problem marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• International for those who fear the French are biased: Rheinischer Post (de), La Presse (it), Vanguardia (es). μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support An important and impressive figure doktorb _words^deeds 06:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not ready I'm starting to think the [Ready] tag should be discontinued considering half of the time it's put up when there clearly is no update. A single twelve-word sentence does not constitute a sufficient update, even for the death ticker. -- tariqabjotu 07:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ready I am not sure how you get only one sentence of twelve words. This is indeed well updated, going from 18,719 bytes to 21,570 since his death. Compare [14]. I see six new sentences/phrases beginning: (1) and for his New York Times best-selling magnum opus, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present, published in 2000, when he was 93 years of age. (lead), (2) was a drama critic of the Columbia Daily Spectator (life), (3) Barzun died peacefully in his home (life), (4) His widely quoted statement, “Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.” was inscribed on a plaque at the Baseball Hall of Fame. (career), (5) With this work he gained an international reputation. (career), (6) In his philosophy of writing history, Barzun emphasized the role of storytelling over the use of academic jargon and detached analysis. He concluded in From Dawn to Decadence that "history cannot be a science; it is the very opposite, in that its interest resides in the particulars." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

In practice the update usually is at least one full paragraph on the death itself. While I broadly agree updated content elsewhere in the article should be considered, 6 new sentences spread throughout the article is not enough IMO. I agree it's not ready. Also, the article is rated start-class. Also the ready tag was added inappropriately.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, if there is much to add to the article arising from what is published after his death, there was evidently little interest in making his article comprehensive before his death. So If his article was not of great interest to our readership a week ago, why should we assume that it is now. Therefore oppose Kevin McE (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KevinMcE, I've certainly used that line of oppose before, and I do think there's some validity to it. But many wikipedia articles are undeveloped relative to either the subject's notability or reader interest. On-wiki interest isn't always a fair gauge.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might not think so: fine, don't use it. I chose to, so please don't tell me what reasons I can and can't use. Kevin McE (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoa. Johnsemlak, I'm sorry but you and Tariqabjotu seem to be inventing rules. Can you guys please point to where it says which five sentences matter? Because of the diversity of content, each article is unique and needs to be evaluated individually, in my view. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Super-Duper Updated I have added another 3,000 bytes to the article, three rather jam packed bits of commentary on the scope of his life from the NYT, the WSJ and The Telegraph. This should fulfill any requirement that the update relate to the death. The nomination is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susan, the five sentence update has long been the standard for an article update (I believe that's specified in the page on admin instructions for editing the ITN template) for any ITN blurb. Whether the same update standard needs to be applied for death-ticker nominations is not something we've resolved I believe. As I've posted on the talk page, I don't think we should have the same standard for the recent deaths ticker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, instructions for admins are pretty clear. Just keep in mind there's no requirement that those five sentences have to be about anything in particular. Sorry I reacted. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi sentenced to 4 years in prison

 ---- Ashish-g55 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highly notable figure... this would call for obvious support from me atleast -- Ashish-g55 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Conviction with a jail term for a leading politician and rich and powerful public figure is very noteworthy. --PopularMax (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Clearly notable international story doktorb _words^deeds 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • International? How? Thue (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Jail sentence for an ex-premier is clearly noteworthy, especially one with a history like Berlusconi, whose businesses always played a huge role in his career. Regards SoWhy 15:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Surprised this isn't up already, it should be assuming it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I am unfamiliar with the rules, is it convictions that are ITN material? Or when they go to prison? Speciate (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its upto us to decide. In this case i would say it makes no difference if he goes to prison or not, just the fact he got convicted is quite big -- Ashish-g55 16:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had some problems with the Italian earthquake story. doktorb _words^deeds 16:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Conviction is for a former prime minister who was in the U.S. news frequently. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• zOMG Italian Cultural Bias! How many Italy stories are we gonna post here! We need more diversity! Oh, yeah, support Major news, former world leader gets convicted is a pretty highly important story, and this one is easy to see that it's all over the major news outlets. --Jayron32 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support as per those above, clearly notable. It's unlikely he'll actually see the inside of a jail cell (thanks largely to some loopholes created by laws he passed), so this is the best time to post. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, certainly notable, no need to state the reasons.Egeymi (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - Obviously ITN-worthy; like others I don't understand the delay. Jusdafax 19:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well, there's no sufficient update, for one thing. -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yep, that's why. I just read the article closely and this jail sentence appears to only be mentioned briefly at the end of the lede. Wish I could help but am unable to spare extra time. Anyone? Jusdafax 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Updated I have added three more sentences re the conviction, sentencing, reduction of sentence, fines and disbarment from office. There is a tag complaining the lead is too long, but that strikes me as bollocks for such a big article. I am marking this ready. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The sentence has been reduced to one year now. Brandmeister^talk 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Windows 8

Nominator's comments: Featuring the new Metro interface paradigm and desktop-tablet fusion, it is not just another Windows release but a big gamble by Microsoft. A very respectable percentage of the planet's population will use it at some point. Yes, it is a product release, but a significant one. Windows has a huge monopolistic market share, so it is fair to feature this and not Mac OS X or Linux. Thue (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose This is a press release, not news. Wikipedia is not a billboard, PR team, promoter or commercial platform. ITN is not a tech blog doktorb _words^deeds 12:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral, The release of a new Windows OS is important news to myself and many others, and I feel impartial news coverage could be applied here like it is on many sites. But I cannot support for reasons belonging to how much news coverage this has garnered, and the general impact of this. --Klak of Klak (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - No iPhone 5, no Windows 8. Simple.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changed to support - We did post Windows 7.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Suppose I would support if Windows 7 and Windows Vista were posted in their time, but oppose otherwise. This isn't just about tablets - it is supposed to be the next version of desktop as well. But will offices upgrade to Windows 8? I don't think they will. How many offices have or want touchscreens? Computers aren't getting much faster these days, so no urge to upgrade. 2.97.21.21 (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose let's leave the advertisements to DYK. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support(edit conflict) Compared to the iPhone/iPad, Microsoft Windows is the operating system found on 92% of the world's computers. That's over a billion computers in the world running Windows. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 13:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But how many of those are running Windows 8? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support this is not about PRing or advertising, but about the most popular OS in the world. Plus we posted iPad 2 when it was launched and that product has less of a worldwide relevance than windows 8. Nergaal (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did we really post iPad 2? I would certainly not have supported that. The Windows 8 release is much more interesting than the iPad 2 release. Thue (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    We didn't post the Ipad 2 or any iOS device release, at least going back to mid 2009.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Nothing groundbreaking, and it'll simply be replaced with another OS in a few years anyway. Why bother posting an advert? GRAPPLE X 13:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually somewhat groundbreaking, since the are changing the basic desktop start button interface which has been in place since Windows 95. The changes are very user-visible. Thue (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • So it looks different? Oh by all means go ahead then. :/ GRAPPLE X 13:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It not just looks differently, it behaves differently; more than a skin. And an app store, which is actually also a big deal for the global software market, with whiffs of monopoly. Thue (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • These are still pretty much incremental and cosmetic changes, there is nothing that this release has done, relevant to its precursors, that the previous or next ones haven't done. It's just another step along a constantly-updating road. GRAPPLE X 14:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • While there is no groundbreaking science that hasn't been done before here, the difference here is market penetration. The median Wikipedia reader will encounter Windows 8, and probably spend hours trying to figure out the new interface paradigm. If you take the cumulative effect on peoples' lives as a criteria for newsworthiness (and I do), then the Windows 8 release should qualify. Thue (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • "There is no groundbreaking science" - so it's not notable. "....difference here is market penetration" - this is not something you can't use on ITN/C. "...cumulative effect on peoples' lives as a criteria for newsworthiness (and I do), then the Windows 8 release should qualify" - Well we don't, so it won't. doktorb _words^deeds 16:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Nominator's comment that it is fair to post a monopolistic product is ludicrous. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is that even supposed to mean? Fairness doesn't enter in to it, the only point with the monopoly argument is whether the product will affect enough people to be newsworthy. Thue (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To be honest, Thue, your nominator comments don't help. It's a paragraph of PR speak and advertiser's guff (nobody outside an advertising agency uses the term 'paradigm'). As with the discussion above, all that's changed is the look. It's not creating something new, it's just an update. This is ITN, where news stories are debated and occasionally published on the front page. "Microsoft releases an update to a service it provides" is not news, it's just a PR release. doktorb _words^deeds 14:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose If Apple products are rejected here, then why would we promote a Microsoft product? Even if "Windows is the operating system found on 92% of the world's computers", Windows 8 won't be. My computer didn't automatically update from Windows 7 overnight. There would need to be something truly revolutionary in this release for it to merit promotion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's the first Windows desktop OS to be heavily touchscreen-based. If that's not revolutionary, what is?--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That's all much of a muchness. Previous Windows OS have featured multi-touch support; this one has more (OS X also features multi-touch support, although I have no idea how that compares to Windows). Either way, that's evolution. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Touch-based OSes have been around for years. That Microsoft finally joined the party is hardly revolutionary. Resolute 00:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It would be disruptive to !vote solely on this basis, but consider the difference between Ceefax and what came before it, and the impact it in turn had on future technologies. Then consider the same questions for recent versions of Windows. I don't dispute that every version of Windows is a significant improvement on its predecessor, but most versions are evolutions rather than revolutions. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose It's an update, with some new bells and whistles - happens fairly regularly and nothing we haven't seen already somewhere else in some way or another, so not noteworthy enough for ITN --PopularMax (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose There's a broad consensus about not posing these commercial rollouts. μηδείς (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, since it is not very influential development in the people's life. But, a commercial development.Egeymi (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support New release of the most widely-used OS. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support - Largest change to Windows in my lifetime. These "regular updates" tend to happen only once every three years. This isn't one of those every other month Google Chrome updates. Also the arguments that the main page shouldn't ever be used for product news sound like the musings of an anti-corporate activist. That's not objective.

Let me pose another equally inane argument: Mitt Romney winning the U.S. presidential election is not notable enough for ITN. "Romney is not an upgrade of Obama. Romney is just more of the same narrow political spectrum. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is revolutionary enough for ITN. Ron Paul for prez 2016!" Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Largest change to Windows in my lifetime." Your user page says you were alive in 1995. That OS was earth shattering. --RA (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a ridiculous comparison. Another incremental product upgrade is not even remotely comparable to a major political election in a huge country, nor are there neutrality issues associated with posting the winner of an election, as it doesn't suggest a favourable disposition towards one or the other candidate, when posting one business' press release and not those of their competitors does. Simply put, this is a terrible idea to post. GRAPPLE X 23:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how posting the winner of an election is more neutral than posting the release of a software product when much of Wikipedia's bad press revolves around its liberal bias. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain to me very slowly what in holy fuck the idea of not pandering to one company at the expense of its competitors has to do with "liberal bias". I'll wait. GRAPPLE X 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just another volunteer here so don't over-escalate this please. Poor, unprofitable *sarc* Apple stands to lose nothing from its 7.62% and growing market share who, like 47%, can afford to but will not switch to Windows anyway. So whatever Microsoft gains from Windows 8 (Windows directly constitutes something like one quarter of its revenue), nobody loses. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is almost the worst ITN argument I've ever seen. What bad press? What liberal bias? What on earth does any of this have to do with Windows 8? Do I really have to spell it out to you why election results are both newsworthy and not a source of political bias? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

220 years of U.S. elections have yielded relatively less progress than the last decade fueled by technology. You can use several metrics, (quantity of bombs dropped, incidence of violent crime). I don't think were electing better leaders (would we see the same progress in the 1800s if Obama was president?) He didn't build that. I'm not saying Windows 7 was directly responsible for the Arab Spring but it has paved the way. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By that logic, so did the availability of computer hardware. Are we going to post every new laptop model too? Of course not. This is simply an advert, it is not a political statement and it is in no way comparable to politics or elections or revolutions, grow up and admit it's simply an incremental software update. GRAPPLE X 00:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do new laptops come out every three years? No, there's another one every week, each one less revolutionary than the last. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are new operating systems released with considerable frequency too, so singling your favourite out to post is in no way revolutionary either. GRAPPLE X 00:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not my favorite. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Like it or not, this is in the news, I don't think any one is disputing that. There is a strong likelihood that upon hearing a news report readers will come to WP looking for information on it, having a link on the main page helps them get what they came form Mtking ^(edits) 22:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Very bad argument. If you want to know about Windows 8, you're likely to Google it, or search for it here in the search box. A general user is not going to look for a direct link from the Wikipedia home page, when they know it's only a search term away.doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose - This is not comparable to elections. The idea is absurd. This is a press release, and we don't do press releases. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Ultimately, this is merely a case of "big company releases new product." Oppose for the same reasons we don't post every Apple, Samsung, IBM, Research in Motion, Nokia, etc. product. Resolute 00:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually we did post when IBM's Watson computer won Jeopardy. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again: that's an achievement, not a commercial release. If you can't tell the difference, don't expect to be taken seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Alex notes, that was an achievement, not a product release. When Microsoft releases something revolutionary, then we can talk. As it is, moving from Windows 6.1 to Windows 6.2 isn't terribly significant, even if they did add a new UI. Resolute 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. The reason why this release is different than the release of an Apple OS is that Microsoft operating systems are by far and historically the dominant operating system for home and enterprise use (except in technical fields, towards which Wikipedia might have a bias), the world over. This dominance is why they lost several antitrust lawsuits. As for the concern that we would be posting a "press release" for Microsoft: well, our posting of the Sakharov Prize is so much more of an egregious publicity act. (1) The European Union created it explicitly for publicity and activist purposes. (2) Since this prize is not as well known as say, the Nobel prizes, it draws attention to the European Union. (3) That prize doesn't document any real change in anything, as opposed to Windows 8, which documents the release of new major software with wide impact. Shrigley (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Products get released every day. Some of these products are released by small companies with little market dominance, some of these are released by large companies with great market dominance. However, just because a company is large and has great market dominance doesn't mean we will feature the release of a new version of its product on our front page. We're not going to feature when Intel release a new chip, for example, or when Adobe release a new version of Flash player just because the vast majority of people use these products on their computers. Their release is just another product released by a mega corporation — or which there are many. --RA (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Shrigley, if you oppose the listing of Sakharov Prize, please take your debate to WP:ITN/R. If you wish for all Windows updates to be added to WP:ITN/R, please take your debate to WP:ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. If this is posted, every product by a large company would need to be posted. I agree with the other oppose comments. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose just another Windows update. Why give undue prominence to an OS which most likely will not be adopted by a vast majority of the universe? Why give undue prominence to a commercial enterprise designed to make money out of its poor users? This piece of commerce is not even mildly interesting and barely scratched the surface of the IT world who know it'll be junk for a couple of years until all the major flaws are ironed out. Not news, just advertising. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: This is a significant event that affects/will affect a lot of people. Windows makes up a signficant portion of OS market share, and previous versions of Windows have been in ITN before. Those using the "advertising" argument forget that the term is quite subjective based on one's personal interpretation, and I could say that every year we're advertising boring film releases, sporting competitions and political uprisings that have nothing to do with me. And before someone says that I'm biased or whatever, I personally think Windows 8 is a load of crap and I hope it sinks like the Titanic, unless they do something about that horrible Metro UI. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Posted] Sakharov prize

 bender235 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - I don't know much about this award apart from what the Wikipedia page says, but I do see that the list of awardees includes such persons as Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan. That seems notable to me.--WaltCip (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I hereby create the "Thue prize", and award it to Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, and myself. Since the list of awardees includes such persons as Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan, I assume you will support that for an ITN news item too? While I don't know whether the Sakharov Prize is notable enough to post ITN, trying to judge it by its awardees is not a valid argument IMO. Thue (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Are you claiming to have the same authoritative status as the European Parliament?.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • What authoritative status does the European Parliament have? Most right-minded people give it the disregard it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.160 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Since you have cited "most right-minded people", my opinion has been swayed. I am changing my !vote to oppose (not).--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per it being in WP:ITN/R, as long as article(s) adequately updated. Really folks, come along now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• If someone will update the two articles on the recipients, I will post this. The main bolded article is updated, but as yet there's not even a single word in either article on the recipients articles. Fix that, I mean, give it a mention of some sort, and since this is ITN/R I'll post. --Jayron32 17:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, worthy candidates, even though they are not Americans. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I've added some text to both articles, but haven't had a chance yet to proofread them as a whole, so won't !vote yet. Also, Sakharov Prize is ITN/R, so I've marked the nom as such. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, and ready? I've now read through both articles and they appear to me to be ready to be prime time players. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marked as such, I also bolded the winners' articles, not the prize one. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support ITN/R doktorb _words^deeds 06:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 07:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Cup winner John Connelly dead

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk)

• Oppose I don't feel as though he was notable enough. From the article, it appears as though he wasn't a standout player, but I could be wrong on this. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Oppose, not notable enough. Τασουλα (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose One of those players who will be good for pub quizes, but not for front page on Wiki doktorb _words^deeds 05:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, since not notable. Also, if this news is posted, then whenever any player of any World Cup winner team dies it should be posted, too.Egeymi (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Not sufficiently prominent or significant. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: Didn't even make it to the front page of the BBC. Not exactly one of the most famous players of all time. --Klak of Klak (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. This is what 'Recent Deaths' is for; this clearly is not of enough global note or impact for ITN. -- PopularMax (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emanuel Steward

Nominator's comments: Legendary trainer in the sport of boxing. Steward was one of the most influential and most recognized trainers in boxing history. He, along with Freddie Roach, was one of the two top trainers in boxing today. Huge loss to boxing. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose- I might support if his article is expanded, updated, and references are added. Unfortunately, his article consists of mostly a list of trainees and has just one reference announcing his death. Far from the best WP has to offer. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I realize that. I am working on it now. Check back later. Updated the article, and continuing to work on it. Should be more than sufficient enough to meet standards now. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: The "Alternative Blurb: Legendary boxing trainer Emanuel Steward, who trained 41 world champion fighters, including Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis, dies at 68" is misleading. Half asleep, I caught the end of it and momentarily thought Lennox Lewis was dead. --86.40.111.209 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I know nothing about boxing beyond the obvious, but I notice this death is being reported in a lot of places and being inducted to a Hall of Fame is a sign of notability doktorb _words^deeds 05:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment, it may be added to recent deaths.Egeymi (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, little known trainer. Speciate (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - Not even for Recent Deaths, where the explanatory blurb wouldn't appear. I'm just not persuaded that this person's achievements are sufficiently notable and attention-grabbing. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: I feel as if there are far too many recent deaths proposed, and ones more notable than this one are often put down. On its own merits, I can't see figure being that notable in the world of Boxing or his death impacting. --Klak of Klak (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I'm floored as to the comments saying he was "not notable in his field". Either those who are commenting know nothing of boxing, or are not being convinced by the article (or aren't reading the sources). I will expand the article further later tonight (so please keep checking), but I would encourage people to read the sources in the meantime, which will make it very clear how notable he was. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. This is what 'Recent Deaths' is for; this clearly is not of enough global note or impact for ITN. -- PopularMax (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are voting for recent death you should specify that rather than oppose. Otherwise you'll be tallied as oppose. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wilhelm Brasse recent deaths

Nominator's comments: Very well known in Poland and Holocaust community; source says "few photographic records of the death camp," and he had 50,000 photos. --Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]