This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Siege of Bani Walid (2012): Militias loyal to the Libyan government capture the town of Bani Walid after days of battle, with locals claiming that 130 civilians have died under artillery shelling attacks from militia forces. (The Daily Beast)(Reuters)
After years of delays and disputes over cost and design, and amid references in newspapers to Germany's rejection of asylum applications by Roma from Kosovo and comments from the country's interior minister alleging "increasing abuse of asylum from countries in the Balkans", Angela Merkel unveils a memorial near the Reichstag to members of the Roma community killed during the Nazi Holocaust. (BBC)
Former Société Générale trader Jérôme Kerviel loses his appeal against a five-year prison sentence for forgery and breach of trust, handed down in 2010. (BBC)
Police in the Denver suburb of Westminster, Colorado arrest a 17-year-old resident who was allegedly involved in an attempted abduction in the killing of 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway. (NBC)
Three people are shot dead, two are critically wounded, and a gunman is at large after shootings at two locations in the Los Angeles suburb of Downey, California: a business next to a Coca-Cola plant, and a residence. (NBC)
A young Pakistani man, whose father was killed by drones alongside 40 others in March 2011, seeks to block the sharing of British intelligence with the CIA. This represents the first serious legal challenge in the English courts to Britain's involvement in the drones campaign. (The Guardian)
Authorities in Mumbai investigate the sudden death last weekend of the renowned Bollywood film-maker Yash Chopra, who was earlier thought to have died from dengue fever. (BBC)
A fire at a hospital in the southern Taiwanese city of Tainan kills at least 12 people and injures up to 60 others. (BBC)
A "very loud explosion" and a "huge fire" at a military factory in Khartoum are being treated as suspicious. (BBC)
Following yesterday's conviction of scientists for their failure to predict the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, Luciano Maiani—head of Italy's disaster body—resigns in protest at the harsh treatment of his colleagues. (BBC)(Al Jazeera)
Support I find myself agreeing with Lugnuts again, this is quite an unusual feeling. A landmark service, one of the first of its kind and a precursor to on-demand information through televisions and computers, Ceefax was the 'ghetto Internet' for millions of British and Irish viewers. It's passing marks the switch over from analogue to digital, and as such is a major development worthy of the front page doktorbwordsdeeds07:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several opposers are being "unproductive" - according to the instructions on this page - by opposing something they see as relating only to a perceived small area. "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 and is unproductive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no one enforces that "instruction"; you only need to look at the past few months of U.S.-centric nominations and their respective opposes for proof.--WaltCip (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^^ If no one opposed certain items on the basis of it not having enough international significance, we would probably have too many stories to post...what I will not stand for, and nor should anyone else, is country-centric voting or "Revenge" voting.--Τασουλα (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you saying? That the nomination (which was made by separate editors in separate countries at the same time! - such was the belief that it should be nominated) is some sort of "revenge" for something else going on elsewhere? That's very hard to credit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a notable entity as the first such service of its kind, so if looked at as a "recent death" of sorts, Ceefax certainly passes the bar for notability in its field. GRAPPLEX
Oppose - This is merely the technical closure of a system with no users left. (Northern Ireland just went over to digital TV, so no-one is broadcasting or receiving the appropriate signals any more.) AlexTiefling (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's notable news not just because it was a British teletext system that has been shut down, but because it was the first teletext system that has now been shut down, regardless of country; "only national relevance" shouldn't really apply. As a comparison; if Ceefax was only the BBC version of a system that had been invented first in, say, Germany, then the shutting down of Ceefax wouldn't be notable whilst the shutting down of the original German system I would support. I would also draw comparisons to the shutting down of the French Minitel online system earlier this year, on ITN it was successfully nominated with no opposes, only to not be posted due to a lack of update in the article (which I hope you'll agree doesn't take away from the comparison).--23230talk15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated this but then 5 minutes later another user renominated it and reworded the blurb and after I reverted then he rereverted to his blurb but added my IP as the nominator. Since it is the blurb of his nomination which appears above it should be his IP that appears as the nominator, which means I feel it is legitimate for me add my !vote to this discussion even though I originally nominated. Reason for support is that it is notable event of its kind. A nice different variety of new item for ITN. 89.241.235.110 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two were at the same time. There was an edit conflict. Your one got in first. And your blurb did not use the standard simple present tense as specified in the instructions so required a change. Someone else would have done it later anyway. And you can have all the credit for all that. --86.40.103.53 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ceefax has passed on! This teletext-service is no more! It has ceased to be! Ceefax has expired and gone to meet its maker! Ceefax is a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! Ceefax is off the twig! Ceefax has kicked the bucket, Ceefax has shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-TELETEXT-SERVICE!! 78.144.197.46 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd better replace it, then. [pause for effect] Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the back of the shop, and uh, we're right out of analogue. --86.40.103.53 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wasn't quite sure what to say here. It does have some claim as to the genesis of interactive TV, albeit in a limited way, but I'm always reluctant to over-estimate the importance of British stories internationally. OTOH I see a parallel between this and the closing of Minitel. Since looking on looking it up I gave that a weak support I'll do the same here too. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Nominator's comments: We need to have fairly low criteria on deaths if we want to keep the ticker moving, and I think these people meet that threshold. --Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding both. The original nomination said "McGovern + Chopra + two recent deaths" and the two weren't posted so there is still space for two others. Russell Means, nominated separately below, appears to already have overwhelming consensus for some sort of inclusion on the Main Page. As for Sunil Gangopadhyay, well he seems a top notch writer of international renown. Not every Bengali writer gets his own BBC obit. President Mukherjee has called him "one of the greatest Bengali intellectuals." And it has also been said that "It will be extremely difficult to fill the vacuum in Bengali literature after his death as Sunil had heralded a new style in Bengali literature." I think that sums it up nicely. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Object to nominating two candidates at once. Per the RfC regular nom procedure was to be followed. Noms like this are in effect packaging support or oppose votes or inviting a huge amount of confusion. This should be separated--and Means has already been nominated, there is no problem voting "recent death" under his nom. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It looks like I have been forced to make this point again: the nomination is not a package. You can support one and oppose one. As a side note, this eliminates the only objection to posting either death thus far. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close I call on an admin to shut down this "nomination" immediately. There was strong opposition to, and absolutely no support in the RfC for changing the regular one-at-time nomination process for deaths. There is no existential emergency to wikipedia that justifies multiple combined nominations, overlapping nominations, and nominations that are expanded to cover new candidates by random passers-by! Deliberation is called for, not anarchy. If you want to vote for Russell Means, please do so--there is already a full majority in favor of a ticker listing. If you want to nominate others then please do so, separately, and let them be voted upon according to their own separate merits. Note also that the two "supports" we have for this "nomination" are by the same editor. Let us please stick to the results of the RfC both in implementing the ticker and in sticking to established procedure and respect for consensus. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. First of all, the "random passers-by" are the people who decide consensus - Wikipedia could not function without these "random passers-by" of yours. Second of all, admins do not have some sort of special powers to shut down friendly conversations that other non-admin editors do not have. Third of all, Wikipedia is not censored - why do you want to shut down valid interactions between users which are doing no harm and are used to help determine consensus? Fourth of all, the two supports are for three different things and that is pretty obvious. Fifth of all, this is not a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because it is not appropriate to squeeze an arbitrary selection of people together for a single nomination, disallowing full discussion about each on their own merit. doktorbwordsdeeds07:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I just don't see the significance, nor major media coverage. Besides, you didn't even bother to point out that he's the ruler of Qatar. Modest Geniustalk18:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it have to be pointed out every single time that he's the ruler of Qatar any more than David Cameron is the UK Prime Minister or Barack Obama the American President or Angela Merkel the German Chancellor? Is that really a valid reason to oppose something? Major media coverage from across the world calls it "landmark" and "historic". It's completely unknown for a foreign ruler to visit there. [1][2][3][4][5][6] There have been deaths. [7] And it is not a meeting. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what these things are though. What else can anyone expect but for them to be "diplomatically interesting"? Where is the rule saying "diplomatically interesting" things are banned from ITN and who decides whether something is "diplomatically interesting"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Riot police in Kuwait attack demonstrators with teargas, stun grenades and batons. (Al Jazeera)
Syrian civil war: A Jordanian soldier dies during a gunfight between Jordanian troops and Islamic militants attempting to cross the border into Syria. (CTV News)
A Kindle user from Norway has her account wiped and all her paid-for books deleted by the American multinational electronic commerce company Amazon.com. (The Guardian)
Business and economics
A former Goldman Sachs employee blows the whistle on the investment bank having routinely taken advantage of charities and pension funds to increase its profits. (The Guardian)
The chairman of the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, likely will not stand for re-election to that post. Ben Bernanke has reportedly told friends he will leave when his term ends in January 2014 regardless of who wins the Presidential election campaign. (New York Times)
International relations
The UK doubles its number of RAF armed "drones" operating in Afghanistan and, in a new development, drones are to be controlled from terminals and screens on British soil. (The Guardian)
Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official are convicted of multiple manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake after prosecutors accuse them of being "falsely reassuring" before the event. (BBC)(The Guardian)(Al Jazeera)
Pussy Riot members Maria Alyokhina and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova are exiled to remote prison camps located in Perm and Mordovia, home to parts of the Soviet-era gulag system. Their exact locations are unknown, even to their lawyers and family members. They had petitioned to be held in Moscow which would have allowed them to watch their young children grow. (The Guardian)
The body of a female found late Monday in a recycling container in Clayton, New Jersey is preliminarily determined to be that of missing 12-year-old girl Autumn Pasquale according to police (NBC)
Politics and elections
Okinawa's legislative assembly passes a resolution expressing "overwhelming indignation" at the alleged rape of a Japanese woman by two U.S. soldiers, the latest of 5,747 crimes on record allegedly involving U.S. personnel over the past 40 years, and condemns the worsening criminal activity of foreign troops on the island. (Al Jazeera)
A football fan is jailed after an attack on former England international goalkeeper Chris Kirkland during a match last week. Twenty-one-year-old Aaron Cawley was filmed on live television jumping from the stand and striking Kirkland with both arms on the head following a goal during the league match at Hillsborough. Kirkland, who described the assault as like being "hit by a ton of bricks", was thrown off balance, crashed to the ground against his goal area and required treatment for his injuries. (The Guardian)(The Daily Telegraph)
[Posted] "Falsely reassuring" scientists convicted of multiple manslaughter
Support I was just coming to nominate this myself. An unusual case with wide ramifications for scientists who issue public advisories; it's also on the front page of the New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera. But I'm not sure the blurb is quite neutral. The prosecution's case was that the defendants "provided "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger of the tremors". (Adding the public office thing may also be making the blurb wordier than necessary). How about "are convicted of multiple manslaughter for underestimating the danger of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake"? -- -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I understand the story the best they could have said was there is maybe a 2% chance of a major earthquake in the region some point in the next 12 months or so, I guess L'Aquila would not have been evacuated until it happened based on that, even if they had screamed that from the rooftops, so locking them up for 6 years even seems a 'bit harsh'.EdwardLane (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I left out the "and barred for life from public office" part for brevity, since being convicted of multiple manslaughter is surely more significant than being barred from public office. Thue (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting as too early. According to [8], "The seven — Bernardo De Bernardinis, Enzo Boschi, Giulio Selvaggi, Franco Barberi, Claudio Eva, Mauro Dolce and Gian Michele Calvi — are appealing against the verdict. They will remain free until the appeals process is finished, which could take years." They aren't actually in jail, and might not ever make it there. This fact isn't mentioned in the article. I'd support later if the conviction is upheld after appeals. SpencerT♦C15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Spencer. The verdict is not yet legally binding, as long as there is an appeal trial. It should be pulled. Only five hours of discussion was a bit quick. --RJFF (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the issue here is that they've been convicted of manslaughter at all. Whatever happens that cannot be undone, they'll still have been convicted for being incapable of predicting an earthquake. It is a unique case. And it was mentioned above that them being sent to jail was left out of the blurb for that reason. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
commentSenior members of an Italian government disaster assessment body resigned in protest - president, vice president and emeritus president according to the BBC, reuters has the same names with expresident rather than emeritus [9] and incidentally the telegraph says 'a day after the watershed ruling that sent shock waves through the international scientific community' EdwardLane (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. The headline for this news item is false and I've pulled it from the main page. From New Scientist: "...failure to predict the quake is not, in fact, what the seven men have been convicted of. The prosecution made it crystal clear all along that their case was about poor risk communication;".[10]Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. No one can exactly predict earthquakes. So this is not what they are accused of. They "gave a falsely reassuring statement", they wrongly downplayed the danger of a possible major earthquake after the population was anxious because of the preliminary tremors, even though it was scientifically impossible to rule out a major eathquake. This is what they are accused of. --RJFF (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with the pull (I noted the same issue above, but was disregarded), but still think it should appear on the main page in a revised form. This is a major international headline, and therefore something a Wikipedia reader might logically want to read about; waiting for further developments in the case could take years, and are likely to receive far less attention, and have less impact, than this initial verdict. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After reposting, I just want to add my support. The conviction is major news. Down the line the appeals process may lead to more news, but the story is nonetheless major news right now and worthy of inclusion. Dragons flight (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy pull- I don't think the posting administrator is familiar with the ins and outs of ITN, but it has become unwritten law that we don't post rulings until all appeals are completed. The first admin to see this should pull. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above commentators miss the point that is a unique conviction and that even if were appealed it would still have occurred. It is the conviction that has caused so much international debate among scientists, media, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact of a conviction in this kind of case is huge news and transcends normal boundaries--it's inherently newsworthy, and of interest to our readers now, not if the case is upheld two years from now. If it's overturned that will be separate news. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't think an "unwritten rule" requires pulling; if it's a "speedy pull" level rule, we ought to codify it as one. But in any case, I've never seen the logic of waiting until all appeals are completed. In some US cases (the legal system I'm personally most familiar with), appeals and retrials can drag on for decades after the original case, and it's often difficult to tell when appeals are fully exhausted; later discovery of evidence and procedural irregularities can be the foundation of new appeals. Even in legal systems which note the irrevocable end of all appeals, posting then--which often receives only minimal coverage--instead of when an item is receiving a large amount of international coverage, and therefore of greater interest to readers, seems like an unhelpful standard. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi for the endless appeals in the Italian legal system. I've also never heard of this standard of which Bzweebl speaks, nor do I understand it to be an unwritten rule around here. Support posting on the merits: this is either a noteworthy aberration or an historic first in criminalizing scientists' work.--Chaser (talk) 04:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bzweebl has invented this supposed rule as far as I can tell. Often, people vote against final appeal decisions because if they go against the appellant, they do nothing to change the status quo. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Recent Deaths Agitator with no accomplishments outside playing an Indian in movies. Means was a subject of contempt among his own people as a showboater. [Changed vote per comments below] μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this for the "recent deaths" line or for the regular ITN? If recent deaths, I support. If regular ITN, I oppose, because it fits recent deaths better. --RJFF (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RJFF points out another reason why Recent Deaths/death ticker is unworkable. It's added confusion and uncertainty. I happen to agree that this nomination should go on the front page (so Support), but not knowing whether this will get the full treatment or not doesn't fill me with confidence. doktorbwordsdeeds16:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is, by far, the lamest reason to oppose the recent deaths ticker yet. I don't believe I've participated in any of the ticker discussions and I don't think chronicling deaths should be among ITN's priorities, but the notion that it's a poor idea because it's too hard to do exactly what RJFF did -- say he supports this for the ticker and not a full blurb -- is ridiculous. The ticker will likely lower the bar slightly or make it less controversial for certain deaths to make it onto ITN (via the ticker, I mean) and should raise the bar for getting a full blurb. I'll be honest; I don't know how or why this should meet a raised-bar standard for a full blurb. Even if you disagree with the ticker solution, it is quite apparent that over the past year or so, despite efforts to make the death criteria more concrete, we post too many deaths. -- tariqabjotu19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the RfC, deaths should only get a full ITN listing if they are highly notable, like sitting heads of state or the death of Princess Diana. They can still get listed as ITN if there is sufficient majority support for that. But people can support recent deaths only for deaths they consider of lesser notability. If there are insufficient votes for a full ITN listing, but still a good consensus for recent deaths, say 1/3 oppose, 1/3 ITN, and 1/3 recent deaths, then that would be tallied as 2/3 in favor of recent deaths at least, and the nom would go up. I do see the benefit of writing up a policy on this based on what was discussed in the RfC, but I don't see the benefit of having the opposing editors making an issue of this with every nom--the matter of Recent Deaths was settled in four votes separate votes since May at least. I am still strongly opposed to this nom for a full ITN listing. Means was a very minor actor and a self-promoting agitator who accomplished nothing with his "activism". I am personally acquainted for many years with Miniconjou Lakota who view him (and other "professional" Indians--they have an insulting Sioux word for it) as an inauthentic poser who doesn't speak for them or represent their values. As a matter of good faith, though, I will change my vote to support recent deaths only. There will be readership interest given the press coverage. But he nowhere near equals McGovern in statecraft or Chopra in film, so I remain opposed to a full listing in the highest degree. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to check stats, Means has a little more than half the readership interest that McGovern does, quite a bit less than Chopra. Given there are no opposes at this point, three supports and two supports for recent deaths, I do think it would be appropriate to add him to recent deaths now. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of reversion going on, note the number of intermediate edits not shown. After this edit [11] I count five sentences with refs. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tariqabjotu, it is updated. When I saw it there were zero sources for the whole section "Final years and death", which is sourced now otherwise it would all need to be removed. I added the Associated Press quote and some kind of a source (in one case a video of Means speaking). I agree, a GA-level article it isn't. μηδείς, good job restoring somewhat balanced book criticism. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Bzweebil and IP 86.40.108.76 have expressed their support for Means as a recent death nom in an above thread. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You and Bzweebil (whose good faith seems a lot clearer) have both expressed your support for Means going on the death ticker above. Feel free to remove your multiple votes above and vote no here. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We must be reading different articles. I see only one sentence that couldn't have been written before this year, let alone this week. -- tariqabjotu04:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is: The following year, however, his health continued to decline and he died on October 22, 2012, less than a month before his 73rd birthday.[37] . SpencerT♦C06:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, the "IP" is now taking away the [ready] after putting in the necessary effort to overcome the one sentence update alleged above. Talk about stalling a process.
Support - big news in cycling. This is, effectively, the reversion of 7 items (Tour wins) that would have been ITN posts. While the story has been stretched over a few months, the UCI rescinding the titles is that thing that means a large change in the content of this encyclopaedia, hence we should post now. Need to make sure Tour de France is in order too. Do the titles now go to the highest-finishing clean rider of those Tours? LukeSurltc11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, that its not correct. Reuters: "Other issues such as the potential re-awarding of Armstrong's Tour titles will be discussed by the UCI Management Committee on Friday. // Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said he believes no rider should inherit the titles given doping was so widespread at the time." --hydrox (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fix blurb UCI didn't exactly "strip" Armstrong of his titles as the blurb says, but merely decided not to contest the recommendations by USADA in arbitration, as explained by this NYTimes article. I suggest fixing this by just leaving UCI out. Furthermore, Tour de France awards three different titles each year, out of which general classification is the most important. Suggest new blurb: "Lance Armstrong is stripped of his seven Tour de Francegeneral classification wins." --hydrox (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fix blurb The UCI have confirmed a retroactive disqualification of all results (not only seven events) that Armstrong had since August 1998 that had been passed down several weeks ago by USADA. We really ought to give correct info rather than the media headlines. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing incorrect about the blurb. This is the main story. That he was stripped of several other results that no one cares about is beside the point. With unlimited space, as we have in the article, everything that he was stripped of can be detailed. But the main story for the Main Page is that he was stripped of the Tour de France titles. -- tariqabjotu05:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we re-tell the inaccurate summary that mass media use, and totally ignore what ought to be the advantage of an encyclopaedic viewpoint. The International Cycling Union confirms the removal of results of seven time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong for doping offences.Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article:2012 Azana Spa shootings (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Four people, including the gunman, are killed in a spree shooting at a spa salon in Wisconsin, U.S. (Post) News source(s):CNN Credits:
Oppose. This appears rather ordinary by the standards of the country in which it occurred. Now if it had happened in Singapore or Japan or New Zealand then maybe... but not in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.196.148 (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Beirut bombing: Lebanese security forces fire shots into the air and tear gas at crowds, as protesters attempt to breach government offices of prime minister Mikati in response to a car bomb that killed intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan. (Jerusalem Post)
Police fire tear gas and stun grenades at an anti-government protest in Kuwait; protesters were demonstrating against changes to voting laws. (Al Jazeera)
Syrian civil war: Car bombs explode in predominately Christian neighborhoods in Damascus and Aleppo, killing at least 13, as talks between the Assad and U.N. peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi continue. (Wall Street Journal)
Nominator's comments: The recent deaths ticker has already been passed in an RfC. This is not the place to discuss it. If you wish to protest its existence, please start a new discussion on the talk page. The four people I have chosen are of varying notability, and this nomination is not only for the purpose of a posting, but also to gauge the threshold of notability people have for recent death nominations. If Chopra and/or McGovern are posted, they are ineligible for the ticker. The blurb is in chronological order by day, but not time, like standard blurbs. Additionally, the ticker will not be italicized like shown in the nom; that is an automatic function of the nomination template. The sources section is not working, so I will add them here: Chopra, McGovern, Thomas, Magni. --Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the template issue (that was entirely my fault) that made the sources not show and added 'em into the template for ya. LukeSurltc23:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outright oppose. This implies Chopra and the presidential nominee are in the same league, obviously that is not the case. Fairer to post Chopra sepratately. If lesser people are to be included like that then that is a different matter. --86.40.100.31 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a procedural note, I suggest we adopt Ticker or RD only or something similar as a type of !vote, indeed it looks like people are starting to do this already. In some cases items could be added to the ticker on the basis of an initial consensus and then "promoted" to a main blurb if sufficient consensus formed for that. Indeed, Doktorbuk, these current cases could be considered like that as well (it's just that we have to start with several rather than adding one-by-one so there's no easy way of doing that). All in all it'll probably take a few weeks to iron out how best to do this however. LukeSurltc22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chopra Inadequate update. Other than being prolific, no indication he was significantly influential in the field.
Oppose McGovern A presidential candidate does not satisfy ITN/DC. Otherwise, a respected but not overly influential politician.
Oppose Thomas no update at all, article is practically a stub.
Oppose Magni inadequate update. Retired 50 years. Even less impact on society that McGovern.
4 noms in 1 gets 4 opposes in 1, sorry Medeis. I also strongly suggest that some time be spent working out how to implement the "death ticker", and get it added to the template instructions before trying to railroad it into existence. --IP98 (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I would like to address some misconceptions that have been brought up. This is not a replacement for the McGovern and Chopra nominations. Those are still eligible for a standard posting. Additionally, as IP98 correctly realized, this is not a full package, and you can support/oppose some or support/oppose all as long as you have explanations for each. Finally, ITN/DC is not being applied to this. That is strictly a ruleset for standard blurb postings. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not not accept the validity of the "passing" of the discussion on recent deaths. The idea that an old discussion can be modified while still in archives to say what you want and then cited in support of your case is frankly ridiculous. It seems people have taking to riding roughshod over policy and procedure in favour of bully boy tactics. I do not accept that and I will be disputing this "decision". Since Eraserhead effectively reopened the discussion by editing it in archives he may in no way be considered uninvolved. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that Eraserhead added any comments to the discussion other than the closing rationale so challenging that he was 'uninvolved' seems to be a slight technicality at best. However, I will oppose the nomination as proposed and agree that the recent deaths tickers should be set up before we decide on which names to add; and we should not 'rush' to add any particular deaths. I'm not opposed to any of the nominated deaths individually.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead was definitely uninvolved. I found him at the "request for uninvolved admin closures" board. This is not a case of "an old discussion can be modified while still in archives to say what you want" because Eraserhead never had anything to do with the discussion. See the talk page for more details. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off-topic comment: If the article on him was better, I'd say E. Donnall Thomas would be worth consideration for being posted on his own, because he performed the first performed the first bone marrow transplant and won a Nobel Prize for it (which means he's extremely notable and influential in his field). But two days have passed and the article is rather small. -- Scorpion042204:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see that I am the bugaboo of certain editors in this discussion--without my even having participated in it. That being said, I would have been opposed to McGovern as a full ITN nom, but am strongly in favor of him as a Recent Death nom. The other three have to stand on their own though. Perhaps a collective vote is not appropriate, since individual noms is what was promised in the RfC and arguments in favor of it, and opposition to the RfC was mostly due to a fear that the individual nom process would be bypassed. Support McGovern and Support Chopra for recent deaths--and suggest we set up separate threads for all noms. μηδείς (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post McGovern for recent deaths Already We have people above voting no four times on one nom because they are voting on the wrong criteria, we've got people voting against a nom because they oppose a closed and passed RfC. We've got opposed votes in the full ITN Nom for McGovern which were actually support votes for recent deaths. Some admin needs to step up and do their job and implement the consensus for recent deaths and the consensus in favor at least of posting McGovern there. This is getting to be a shameful farce. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as ticker There haven't been a heck of a lot of opinions provided, but there seems to be enough support for the concept of a ticker to at least give it a try, and enough interest and support for both the McGovern and Chopra items (more for the latter) to use them as the test subjects. -- tariqabjotu05:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this discriminatory conclusion that Chopra is somehow equivalent to McGovern. Is there and has there not been a separate consensus for Chopra to be highlighted on his own, and was this not already the case before he was taken down. This would simply not be allowed to happen if the two people in question were Clint Eastwood and Lakshmi Sahgal. This is ridiculous, cruel and unjustified treatment of Chopra who should not be subjected to some kind of sick racist experiment like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.76 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for acting on this, Tariqabjotu. Presumably names will stay up till they are pushed off the line by new noms. That can be discussed at talk, it's not a problem with the nom itself. As for "sick racist experiment"? μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: With reference to the comments below, I accept that we will have to take a more 'legalistic' approach to the nomination than usual. I accept that it could be argued that a lack of English language sources dilutes claims of notability. In response I can only point editors towards the current media coverage and towards the links in our own article to help research the width and breadth of his career. --doktorbwordsdeeds20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was said last time a Bollywood actor was nominated; because of language/cultural separation the vast majority of us here on en-wiki won't have heard of this man. We know that's not a reason to oppose, but neither can we write an argument in support either. There's a danger that there ends up being minimal discussion on this nomination. We can gather a bit from the article, but it would be really useful if the knowledgeable few could be particularly verbose in their arguments for the benefit of the rest of us. LukeSurltc21:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to start with, the report at the top of BBC News Online link calls him "one of India's most influential film-makers", says that "over five decades, Chopra, dubbed the King of Romance, gave Bollywood some of its biggest blockbusters" and "his film studios Yash Raj Films helped establish some of Indian cinema's biggest names, including Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan." Prime Minister Singh has called him an "icon of Indian cinema." His death has left Bollywood "shattered", "shocked", "numb" and "heartbroken." link --86.40.100.31 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's one of the top entertainment stories on the BBC's news website (pushed down by the omnipresent top story, that of Jimmy Savile), and would help counter the systemic bias of the main page. GRAPPLEX22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been effectively withdrawn by the nominator and no one currently supports posting it in its own right. If anyone wishes to support posting this as a separate story, then please re-open the discussion. If you wish to support it for the recent deaths ticker, please contribute to the discussion above. Thank you.--Chaser (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: Seb az86556 made the nomination, but deleted it after just one oppose. As deletion of one's own nomination has been declared unacceptable in the past (I tried to defend the right to retract a nomination on a previous occasion, but consensus was against me), I undid his self-deletion. He subsequently changed the template to present me as the nominator, a title I reject. I am Neutral as to the proposal: I has received TV news coverage here (UK), but his historical role is very much a footnote. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since he was not actually president, I feel he doesn't quite make the high notability cut for his death being ITN. Thue (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, every canonization is not remotely notable, the death throes of a decaying church. If this was the 1500s Wikipedia, it might be relevant. Speciate (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's not a political opinion, it's a comment on the complete irrelevance of this moribund institution and its actions to the modern day reader of Wikipedia. Speciate (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural point - it would be better if an uninvolved administrator had been the one to judge consensus, not one who had 2 hours earlier !voted support and stated that 'it's embarrassing that this isn't on the front page already'. Modest Geniustalk11:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I think linking to the list is OK. If he'd only canonised three or four we could have linked to all of 'em in the blurb, but with seven this is the simplest way to provide readers with links to their articles. LukeSurltc12:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Repost We have a rather openly bigoted oppose that should be ignored entirely and a technical complaint about an ad hoc link that is solved entirely by using the alternate blurb. The central fact here enjoys overwhelming support, and should not be brought down do a side-objection regarding a blurb that doesn't require using. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article says "highest-rated racehorse in the world since May 2011", so not that long or historically significant. I would much prefer ITN to rather feature some more news about fx the financial crisis; sports news like this seems too much like trivia to me in comparison. Thue (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankel was only born in 2008, getting to world #1 as a 3 year old isn't bad. I assume the retirement is happening now because of the huge stud value.JMiall₰17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how we can put world's top-rated racehorse in the blurb. Those ratings only consider a handful of countries from what I can see.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as far as I know these are the widest ranging horse ranking systems in the world and Frankel gets the highest score for a flat racer ever.JMiall₰17:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kiril. Any human retirement would only be vaguely considered for retirement at the end of a career of ten years, or maybe many more. Additional legs should not reduce our expectations. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree with any comparison with humans, even human athletes. The point I find most notable about this horse is his success over such a short career. I suspect many others think the same way. It even suggests that horse-racing is taking a very different direction these days to the one it had even 10 years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification The very highest rated flat racehorses retire at either 3 or 4 years for a lucrative stud career. It is rare for an entire horse to progress in terms of speed and stamina whereas a gelded horse can have greater longevity. A further point about Classic and Group 1 winners is that they have enormous earnings potential as stallions, in Frankel's case estimated at £100m. There also seems to be a misunderstanding about ratings. He is recognised by all bar the British Horseracing Authority as the highest ranked horse EVER in history. BHA had him rated 1pt lower before his final race. Leaky Caldron18:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the horses he beat yesterday the BHA may give a higher rating this week. There is an element of subjectivity in these things and different factors weighted by different handicappers, especially when comparing performance over many generations. Leaky Caldron19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- We have had sports retirement nominations, but this is one of an athlete that may be the greatest in his sport of all time. That's something we haven't had. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The great myth about the Grand National is that it is considered by many to be the greatest race in the world. It is a spectacular race made notable through media and cinema coverage, but it does not equate to the best race for the best horses. Even within National Hunt racing, it rarely attracts the absolute top horses in that sphere although there are recent exceptions. It is a race for long distance staying chasers, 4 and a half miles. On the flat the optimum distance regarded as the greatest test are the so called middle distance races from 1 mile to 1 and a half. This is what bloodstock breeders aim for and where the Classic and highest prize money races throughout the world are targeted. Leaky Caldron09:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Frankel never even left the British Isles to race nor did he race on any surface aside from turf. In a sport where the top horses in the world ship every year to Dubai for the Dubai World Cup and the US for the Breeder's Cup, Frankel did neither. We didn't post Zenyatta - and you could make a very similar argument with her. She never left the States. The only reason to post a horse retirement is if it ended some sort of record-breaking winning streak. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Authorities in Tripoli announce the capture of Muammar Gaddafi's former spokesman Moussa Ibrahim near the town of Tarhouna, 40 miles south of the capital Tripoli. Ibrahim's whereabouts had been unknown since the end of the civil war in 2011 and there had been several earlier reports of his arrest. Hours later an audio message purported to be by Ibrahim appears online, in which he denies being captured or even being in Libya. (Reuters)(BBC)
Siege of Bani Walid (2012): Reports emerge that Khamis Gaddafi, the youngest son of Muammar Gaddafi, was killed during the fighting in Bani Walid. The 29-year-old has been proclaimed dead several times since the beginning of last year's civil war. (The Guardian)
Suspected members of Boko Haram attack the northern Nigerian city of Potiskum, destroying several buildings and leaving at least 23 locals dead. (Al Jazeera)
Overnight clashes in southeastern Turkey leave 9 people dead, including 6 security officers and 3 suspected Kurdish militants. (Al Jazeera)
The SV Estelle, a schooner attempting to breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza claiming to deliver humanitarian aid, is boarded by Israeli soldiers and diverted to the port of Ashdod by Israeli naval ships; Israel says no aid is found aboard. Passengers offer no resistance. (The Irish Times)(The Times of Israel)
Jewish-American linguist, philosopher and human rights campaigner Noam Chomsky visits Gaza for the first time and attends a seminar alongside Gazan thinkers and intellectuals. (Press TV)
Politics
Tens of thousands of protesters march through London, Glasgow and Belfast in a series of demonstrations against UK government austerity measures. (BBC)(CNN)(RTÉ)
Wissam al-Hassan, head of Saad al-Hariri's security team, is killed in the blast. Al Hassan was known for being the prime investigator in the Michel Samaha case, where Michel Samaha was caught smuggling bombs into Lebanon upon orders from the Syrian government to kill Lebanese officials between 2005 and 2008, starting with the murder of Rafik al-Hariri.(Al Jazeera)
A tour bus went off the highway and crashed in northwest Arizona late Friday at around 8:00 PM PDT, killing the bus driver (who was believed to have suffered a medical incident), and leaving at least four of the passengers with serious injuries. About 45 other passengers were hurt less seriously, and some were not hospitalized. The bus was northbound on Highway 93 near Willow Beach, Arizona and the Nevada state line, southeast of Las Vegas. (NBC)
Taxicab driver Christopher Halliwell is sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Sian O'Callaghan who went missing after visiting a nightclub in Swindon in March last year. (BBC)
Respect MP George Galloway writes to British home secretary Theresa May and makes a complaint to the police about his secretary Aisha Ali-Khan, claiming that she was working as an "agent" for a Metropolitan police counterterrorism officer who was running a "dirty tricks" campaign against him. (The Guardian)
Wedding of the heir to the throne. We usually post those. There is no separate article but the basic update is there. --Tone17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is big news from a small country. The blurb should use the bride's maiden name, though. There's enough material on the Grand Duke's official website, the BBC, etc, for articles on both the bride and the event to be created, which I heartily recommend. I'm currently stuck in a hospital, but I'll gladly contribute when I'm out. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Strong Oppose. I came to this page expecting a discussion about this, and here I am totally shocked that this was posted with unanimous support. We cannot simply operate on catch-all principles like "royal weddings are by default important" or flimsy precedent-based arguments like "we always post these". These stories have to be held against standards that we give other articles for general notability, not just notability in a specific topic. Even the royal wedding of William and Kate spurred pages and pages of discussion, it would just seem totally ridiculous for this story to get a 'free pass'. Colipon+(Talk) 07:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I was going to oppose it, but didn't because it's Luxembourg. I agree that the reasons you mention are not sufficient for the next case, should it arise. Speciate (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belated comment. Does it make a difference that the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is not just a figurehead? He has some real political power in his country, and has used it. (laugh - remember to add the "royal" into it if a President of France ever marries while in office. He is also legally among the royalty.) - Tenebris 11:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Belated oppose. Figured it should be put on the record even if this isn't likely to be taken down. William & Kate should be the exception not the rule; the British monarchy is unusually well-known and rule over several countries, and its members are celebrities as well. The nobility of Luxembourg are not international celebrities, so that's out. There is the political argument since Grand Duke of Luxembourg isn't a figurehead... but still not convinced. If Angela Merkel's stepsons got married, would this be worth of ITN? I hope not. Alternatively, if "heir" is seen more as "likely to come into power in the future," should the marriages of up-and-coming potential Chancellors in German politics to be reported? Obviously not. And Germany is far more important than Luxembourg. It'd be one thing if the actual ruler was getting married while in office, e.g. Sarkozy & Bruini, but a non-celebrity heir in a minor country? No, pretty well fails all the potential valid reasons to post it. I hope this posting isn't used in the future as an example of a non-controversial case that shows Wikipedia should post any noble's wedding. SnowFire (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with User SnowFire. I can see this used as precedent to post other similarly non-notable events in the future, such as the crown prince of Swaziland taking on another wife or something. That would be highly unfortunate. I'd still opt to take this down, if nothing else to set the record straight on this matter, or even a retroactive 'retraction' of the legitimacy of this posting, so that it cannot be cited in future cases. Colipon+(Talk) 06:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Blurb is yet subject to change as full extent of damages is being assessed. Current estimate is 4 dead and at least 110 injured. --hydrox (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Multiple fatalities, including that of a senior political figure, in a bombing that happened against the backdrop of the Syrian Civil War is a notable event. --Droodkin (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Signs X and Y mean nothing to me. The change in the deaths and injuries reported will continue even if we post the blurb, so there is no reason to avoid use of any numbers. Saying at least 100 or something else seems to be fine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on face value. His election may have been a watershed moment. If so, I'd like that expressed in the blurb. If his significance can only be captured by the words, "Canada's first blackMember of Parliament", then ... meh. --RA (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia:ITN/DC#Deaths, Alexander more than satisfies criteria #1 and 2. He was in a high-ranking office of power (a cabinet minister [Minister of Labour] and the 24th Lieutenant Governor of Ontario) and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region (his election as MP and appointment as LG, both unprecedented firsts in Canada, led to more acceptance and tolerance of black people in Canada). He was also widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field (reasons stated above; also, in his profession as a lawyer, he was both a QC and part of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada). —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a secretary of labour, or a lieutenant governor really qualifies as a 'high ranking position of power'. I don't know if he's widely regarded as a very important person in his field, but I'd like to see some sources confirming he was. I think we'd need multiple reliable sources saying 'one of the most important MPs', or 'considered by many to be one of the most significant MPs' etc. The fact that he was the first black Canadian MP seems to be where the real significance is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think the death section needs a bit more expansion. Normally the update should contain more than details about his death and funeral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He held those political offices over 20 years ago. Neither are 'high ranking' in the way we usually interpret those guidelines, which for a country the size of Canada would be Prime Minister or head of state (were it to ever become a republic). As far as I can tell from the article and nomination, Alexander did not have a great lasting impact on his country or region (in the sense of a supernational area, not subnational). There are many hundreds of QCs and Privy Counsellors, so that doesn't mean much either. Sorry, I'm still opposed. Modest Geniustalk10:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't in a high-ranking office at the time of his death, he resigned a long time before. It would be ITN if an incumbent officeholder died. --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was closed and archived, and then Eraserhead decided to modify the archive to make it say something other than it had, in the apparent hope no-one noticed it. There was a discussion on adjusting the bot only recently and its behaviour reflects consensus. At the very least this kind of imposition needs current debate to reflect current consensus, not citing an old failed proposal as evidence to enact something now. I will re-revert now and any further attempts to re-write history will go straight to AN/I. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American weekly news magazine Newsweek announces it will cease print publication on December 31 and will move to an online-only format. (CNN)
Trading of Google stock on NASDAQ is temporarily suspended after it drops 9% following an inadvertent early release of its quarterly report showing a 20% decline in profits. (BBC)(Bloomberg)
It seems crude but on experience 30 deaths is about borderline for the magnitude of a disaster that is posted, though that threshold is generally somewhat lower for violent deaths. Currently the article linked to is of very low-quality and makes no mention of the incident. LukeSurltc21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Seems like the violence is serious, but the blurb mentioning a federal subject is too naive. I think it's better to mention Nigeria in the blurb, which gives a full orientation for the reader.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lance Armstrong resigns as chairman of his anti-cancer charity, LIVESTRONG.
Athletic apparel conglomerate Nike and cycling equipment manufacturer Trek revoke their endorsement contracts with U.S. cyclist Lance Armstrong in the wake of growing allegations of doping. Both will continue to support LIVESTRONG. (Daily Mail)
Anheuser-Busch states it will allow Armstrong's contract with them to expire at the end of the year. It will also continue to support LIVESTRONG. (BBC)(CNN)
Neutral - This is much more exciting exoplanet news than the two mentioned below. But I'd still like to wait and see how enthusiastically this is taken up by non-specialist media. I've also added an altblurb which distinguishes planet, star and system correctly. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Scientifically unsurprising, but required impressive precision. Bound to make a splash with the public, given that it's a really easy star to point out by eye. Nice outreach topic, but of minor scientific interest beyond the instrumentation aspects. I don't really mind if this does or doesn't get posted, but the article needs some work first (one-paragraph stub at present). Modest Geniustalk11:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - closest possible extrasolar planet, and Earth-sized to boot; smallest planet ever discovered by radial velocity; now also covered by mainstream media (NY Times and many others) after embargo has been lifted. Planet is close enough that it could technically be visited by a (multi-decade) spacecraft [14]. (The blurb should technically say "announced" instead of "found" since it's not yet independently confirmed. But there seems to be no serious doubt on the results.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - interesting news being picked up my major outlets. I've done a few edits and article is no longer a stub, is organised into sections, and the facts are now all cited. (I wish people wouldn't add things without citing, especially with news stories) LukeSurltc15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support That there actually are planets, not just in theory, in our neighbouring solar system is huge news - and not just from an astronomical perspective. Njardarlogar (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post Support. Detecting a 51 centimetre wobble? That's quite the precision... I mean sure, it's only 4.37 ly away, but still! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)20:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post-post Support. Given that the discovery of exoplanets is now routine, posting in ITN requires something extra. In this case, proximity and survival in a trinary system are the kickers. Next, a planet with water in the habitable zone. Speciate (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
