*'''Oppose''' We have not posted accidents of a similar scale before, and this is neither going to have huge readership interest nor will it showcase a worthy article. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We have not posted accidents of a similar scale before, and this is neither going to have huge readership interest nor will it showcase a worthy article. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
** "...this is neither going to have huge readership interest..." False. 36 people dead in a single motor vehicle accident will easily capture a reader's attention. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
** "...this is neither going to have huge readership interest..." False. 36 people dead in a single motor vehicle accident will easily capture a reader's attention. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::"False", eh? The bus crash article peaked at 447 views three days ago [http://stats.grok.se/en/201208/2012%20Chinese%20bus-tanker%20crash] while the article on Phyllis Diller got over 6,000 views yesterday and got ~250,000 on each of the two days after her death was announced. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Regardless of where it happened, it's a high death toll for a single accident, and it's pretty rare. We've posted at least one accident like these before, and we posted the 39 deaths in the Colombian refinery, so we're not out of line if we post it. The article is in good shape and is entirely sourced, so we should be okay to post. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Regardless of where it happened, it's a high death toll for a single accident, and it's pretty rare. We've posted at least one accident like these before, and we posted the 39 deaths in the Colombian refinery, so we're not out of line if we post it. The article is in good shape and is entirely sourced, so we should be okay to post. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
**'''Reply''' The significance of the refinery fire isn't the causalities, but the incident itself. Refineries don't explode all that often. On the other hand, tanker trucks crash and burn all the time, [http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/harford/news/ph-ag-port-tanker-crash-update-0829-20120827,0,3690434.story like this one from yesterday]. It's simply not news, and we're not a death ticker. --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
**'''Reply''' The significance of the refinery fire isn't the causalities, but the incident itself. Refineries don't explode all that often. On the other hand, tanker trucks crash and burn all the time, [http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/harford/news/ph-ag-port-tanker-crash-update-0829-20120827,0,3690434.story like this one from yesterday]. It's simply not news, and we're not a death ticker. --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
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).
With Operation Eagle, its biggest since 1979, the Egyptian Army says it used tanks and helicopters to kill 11 suspected terrorists and arrest 23 others in the Sinai, following the attack that killed 16 border guards. (Ahram)
President Hu officially receives Egypt's president Morsi, who is in China for in-depth discussion and cooperation talks. (Xinhua)
Law and crime
A judge orders the arrest of Tomás Yarrington, a former governor of the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, for allegedly fomenting drug trafficking. (The Monitor)
Nominator's comments: We're talking about a prime minister in court here, not the most common thing in the world. This is the high court, so I presume it's the final verdict in the case. Also, the case itself has led to an international response, as it has strained relations with the European Union. --Activism123401:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Seems like pretty big news. True, it's "only" a murder enquiry being opened, but what comparable figure on the world stage has been bestowed that particular honour in recent times? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's just an inquiry, it's not even known whose suspected of killing him (some Palestinians have blamed Israel, some Palestinians have blamed other Palestinians), and it either way contradicts the official French medical report about his death (died of a massive hemmorhage). The murder inquiry comes in the wake of allegations that he was poisoned by polonium, based on clothing that his wife left around for 8 years and decided one day to test, and abnormally high levels of polonium came back, although some people have pointed out that they should've been very tiny had he been poisoned 8 years ago. But I digress, it's a murder inquiry due to the possibility of a murder, but that possibility is very unclear and the result can very likely turn up to be nothing, so not for ITN in my opinion. --Activism123401:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds really intriguing and potentially good content for the article - but isn't it the exact opposite of a good "oppose" vote? Formerip (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the oppose part in the beginning and after the "But I digress" :) Pretty much same as Muboshgu, except with the part I included as more reasons why I don't find it that notable or important. --Activism123401:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying you oppose it because there are lots of ins and outs and controversy and different views people might take and it's impossible to know what actually happened. But shouldn't all that add up to "interesting" rather than "oppose"? Formerip (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I would've supported posting the allegation that he was poisoned by polonium when it was released a few months ago due to that "interesting" stuff (not sure whether it was posted or not, I wasn't around on ITN). But the police inquiry, which was expected at the time as well, isn't that notable to me, doesn't change any facts on the ground, and doesn't change the theory. The result, on the other hand, may be interesting, but the inquiry itself I don't recommend posting. --Activism123401:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Obviously not unexpected, but still a symbolic and important move, enough to gain the #1 headline on various outlets. --Activism123404:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know we usually post these, but I can't see why. We don't post the nominations for any other country. Romney is a foregone conclusion. He's already announced his running mate, and has been running for president for weeks. This whole process is little more than a pageant and a formality. --IP98 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support if it was actually contested, and we were going into the convention without a presumptive nominee (or in this case Rominee). --IP98 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if it is just now official, everyone in the U.S. should already know by now that Romney is the republican candidate. Posting this would just confuse people. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I cannot recall us ever posting a nomination like this. Despite what Ron Paul supporters have claimed, Romney has been the de facto candidate since May and there is no reason to post this. --PlasmaTwa200:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be as anticlimactic as posting the Electoral College results when they are certified at the end of December. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kinda "meh" worthy for most people due to it being highly expected. Not contentious enough of a nomination (presidential, not ITN) for my support. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with arguments that if this selection was a much closer contest, the news item would be notable, but we've known it was going to be Romney for at least a month. Formality, non-news. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obvious this won't be posted. In meantime, y'all (I'm not Southern) might wanna take a look down below at Kenya riots, where a request for votes has been officially administered, and has a serious chance of being posted. Happy votin. --Activism123402:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Hundreds of protestors, two days of violence, looting, pandemonium in Kenya's capital, and some have been killed. --Activism123404:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose riots that involved no fatalities or anything are not notable. Theres also no article, please cite an article when nominating Activism1234, not just anything thats in the news. [2]Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to find an article and post that here. I wanted to check that it'd be good with a few editors first, based on the votes here, as I am a busy person. Also, there were fatalities involved...... --Activism123423:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'll take a look, Egeymi notified me about that before but didn't get a chance. Also, if you feel that radical should be in quotes, by all means go ahead, I based this nomination on the Portal Current Events. --Activism123400:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article has been updated very well, it's not a subject I know much about (or a story getting much coverage here beyond the World Service), but it looks as though Wikipedia has done its job effectively enough to put this on the front page doktorbwordsdeeds03:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Very significant world event in a contentious conflict. I'm posting it now, becuase peace talks can take weeks, months, even years, in case anyone says we should wait until the talks are over, and the fact that they're holding talks to begin with is significant. --Activism123404:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the FARC article about this a little while ago, considered nominating here, but by precedence these things wait for resolution to get posted. Also FARC havent indicated acceptance. The ref i added siad that during the talks the army would still maintain its position, so its seemingly tenuosu at the momentLihaas (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FARC has accepted. See BBC and France 24. It could take weeks, months, or even years until a final peace treaty is hammered out, but the fact that they've agreed to hold them is, at least to me, significant, which is why I nominated it now. --Activism123404:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, dint see that yet. Should be interesting. We could have a separate article on the talks (As it is that page is a little disorganised) and DYK it. Id still wait on the posting though. One should also add it to Santos' page as its a big event in his goals for personal legacy. Unlieke Uribe, he wanted the "peace at all costs"
I don't thinks this is ready at all. No one has even voted for it yet (feel free to cast the first vote). After some votes, we can decide whether the tag belongs. --Activism123405:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when the article is ready you mark it as updated. [Ready] is for consensus hence it says above "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves.". Mohamed CJ(talk)12:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I learn new stuff everyday. Sorry about that Lihaas! Anyone may feel free to put it back in, I can't do it myself because I nominated it and I think that's another rule. --Activism123415:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No: [Ready] refers to the update status of the article: consensus is a different judgement that an admin makes. But these tabs are entirely arbitrary, were introduced with no discussion, and are added and deleted at whim, so should probably be ignored anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly notable, clearly news worthy, and clearly of suitable for an ITN section of an encyclopedia. Obvious sort of ITN. --RA (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning oppose, it is just a beginning. What will be the results? I think its conclusions, if any, are much notable.Egeymi (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait See what the ruling is. It may be a non-matter, thus just a news blip. It may be something bigger too, but I don't think we can assure it would be either way the ruling could go. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Given the verdict puts the fault on her, while there may be longer-range ramifications, there's no major short-term aspects here (a decision against the nations would have been something significant). --MASEM (t) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until verdict - Wait until what the verdict is, then update, and I'll cast a vote based on surprise factor/notability/coverage. --Activism123403:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Court has ruled against Corrie, citing combatant activies exception and Corrie placed herself in a dangerous area intentionally. See here. (As I've said before, I'll get sleep, then decide on a vote). I updated the template to include the decision and that the article was updated. Hope it helps. --Activism123406:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should explain the court's ruling - current wording seems to me too POV (not to accuse you of one, you're a great and neutral admin, but remember this is a contentious topic and some editors will construe it this way), as court's ruling pertains exactly to that and is a very different account than simply trying to block a demolition. After all, we're posting the court's ruling here - NOT her actual death. --Activism123407:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the suggestion, I feel that's the best way to maintain NPOV in this area, and I hope others will agree with your suggestion. Anyways, sleep time - good night! --Activism123407:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
bloomberg said the rulign was "unintentional" (basically the same that there was no responsibility), lets use that wording. Or better yet, can we get the original first hand wording (and translated from hebrew), though at this level i imagine tehre are official translations.Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important milestone in an internationally famous protest death. Corrie article and reworked blurb are fine. Good ITN material. Jusdafax07:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I tweaked it again, just to spell out in full "MoD" as many people not realize what it's referring to at first. --Activism123415:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this event has received enough coverage to appear on ITN. 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Well it's not on Reuters, AFP, The LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Fox News, Times of London, Xinhua, etc. Let's chalk it up to stupid person does stupid thing, government not responsible. Hot Stop12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also front page on France 24, guardian, Reuters (US edition), New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, SBS and The Independent. You have the right to maintain your opinion of course. Mohamed CJ(talk)12:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not featured in *some* news outlets means we shouldn't include it? No, that's not how it works here...seriously.--Τασουλα (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: had it gone the other way things would have been different. Tragic as the original incident may have been this is simply an official confirmation that the forces were not responsible, as had been maintained by the Israeli government. In that respect this is the absence of a development. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support This story is very important and seems to have received quite a lot of coverage across a number of outlets. I respect Chripmuncher's view that this is the 'absence of a development', though I'm convinced that it's just on the right side of important to be put onto the front page. That said, it is something of a 'time sensitive' story, by which I mean any further delay in posting might do for it quicker than any oppose votes. doktorbwordsdeeds03:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blockade of the Gaza Strip: A United Nations report finds that the Gaza Strip will not be "a liveable place" by 2020 as basic infrastructure in water, health, education and sanitation "is struggling to keep pace with a growing population". (BBC)
The Burmese President Thein Sein changes nine ministers in the cabinet, in an apparent bid to demonstrate that promised reforms are firmly on course. (BBC)
The 75-year-old official who got a javelin in the throat at a junior athletics meeting, on Sunday in Düsseldorf, dies. (Yahoo! Eurosports)(BBC)
Science and technology
The Mars Rover Curiosity broadcasts the first audio recording of a human voice from the surface of another planet. The message from NASA administrator Charles Bolden is beamed to Earth along with new images of the Martian surface. (The Telegraph)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support on 29 August - and I don't think there's a need for a sticky. Sadly, I don't see it getting as much coverage as the regular Olympics. --Activism123422:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Premature It is ITN/R, so only issues are timeliness and readiness. Post after Opening Ceremony, but the only obvious omission from the article at the moment is much about that ceremony. Oppose sticky: enthusiasm for it ran out very quickly during the Olympics, and by early in week 2 it was just a list of gold medallists (sterling work on it since though). Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm highlighting the issue with throwing around the term "systematic bias". We all know that the Paralympics are covered to a lesser degree than the Olympics, and there's no reason for us to treat the events precisely the same in the interest of righting some wrong. The same applies with Tropical Storm Isaac vs. South Asian monsoons. -- tariqabjotu00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sticky wouldn't have to be the same sort of page, though. It could be the main page for the event or any page that can be expected to get updated regularly. I'm not sure either way on a sticky, but the main purpose applies in the same way - without it we may get constant nominations for individual events, and world records are still ITNR. Formerip (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on 29 August. The article starts off in good shape, and this is the sort of article where a quick update is a given. Neutral on a sticky – on the one hand I understand where Tariq is coming from, but on the other it is sadly a fact that the Paralympics receive significantly less global attention. —WFC— 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support on first day of games (i believe thats 30). Opening ceremony can go up tomorrow. For the same reason as accessibility during the ongoing global games.
Support story and sticky - While the Paralympics get less coverage than the Olympics, this year's Paralympics are a bigger deal than ever before, and participants like Oscar Pistorius are likely to make the headlines. Let's go with it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb, Oppose Sticky Very notable sporting event, and ITN/R. Definitely notable to post this blurb when the Opening Ceremony is over. Unfortunately the Paralympics don't garner the attention that the Olympics gets, so I feel as though that the sticky would be fairly useless to post, since the main reason for the sticky is to combat Paralympic ITN blurbs from taking over ITN, but I don't see a lot of other ITN blurbs coming out of these games, except for the Closing ceremonies, and maybe something to do with Oscar Pistorius, since he has been getting a lot of media attention. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. INT/R suggests some criteria for high profile world records that could have been considered as ITN/R, and it would be hard to argue that any paralympic record is of such status, and how that imprecisely phrased entry is still at ITN/R when a discussion fvoured removal by a !vote of 7 to 1 is a testament to our failure to wrap up and act upon discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, yes, ITNR gives criteria not an automatic right, but I think you're wrong to say it would be hard to argue that paralympic records qualify. Particularly for aquatics and athletics events it may be, to the contrary, hard to argue for very long that they do not qualify as "an event such as aquatics or athletics". Formerip (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW, DYK will have content about the Paralympics (generally, two hooks per each set of eight hooks) throughout the 11-day period of the Paralympics. Paralympics hooks have been running (at most, one at a time) for the last few days. --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now The current blurb does not show the importance/significance of Tropical Storm Isaac. If Tropical Storm Isaac does a large amount of damage to New Orleans or any state then I will reconsider my thoughts. Also, the current blurb is very US centric, with no mention of the areas that Tropical Storm Isaac has already gone through (Cuba, Haiti, etc.) Andise1 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Let's see what the impact of the storm is. If it has anywhere close to Katrina's impact, it's a definite post. If it's significantly less, it could still be worth posting. If it fizzles out, then it doesn't belong in ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until there is any significant damage/fatalities. The coincidence of being near Katrina is somewhat POV (it's hurricane season, I'm sure we can find lots of comparable events but that doesn't make the strike any more newsworthy.) --MASEM (t) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there have been tropical storms before at ITN; it's not so much if its a hurricane or tropical storm, but the amount of damage and human fatalities that it causes. I can't immediately tell if this was an ITN, but last year's Tropical Storm Arlene (2011) never got to a hurricane but did 100s of millions of dollars of damage and deaths along Mexico's coast. At the same time, just being a hurricane doesn't assure ITN-ness, if it just gets up to speed then veres away from land with no landfall, simply making some nice surfing waves for beachgoers. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - see what happens during the hurricane, any deaths, damage, how bad it is, etc. Then change the blurb to match that, and I'll cast a vote. --Activism123422:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It will disappear to the archive in <2 hours, but a nomination below was rejected with "It shouldn't be trivialised, but basically the blurb could be re-written as It's monsoon season in India and Pakistan, just like it is this time every year. If there's a major landslide or something that passes the look-at-all-these-dead-people-how-can-we-not-post-that test, then maybe that incident should be posted." Replace monsoon with hurricane, and India-Pakistan with Caribbean-Gulf, and we have exactly the same thing. Let's see how that stands up to our resolve to avoid systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - The anniversary itself isn't the story. Isaac may well prove to be a story in its own right. Let's give it 24 hours and see what happens. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my voice to those saying to wait. The story, if there is one, will need to be about this storm, and the blurb will need to stand on its own based on what this storm does. Coincidental connection to the same date and place of Katrina is not the story here, and if it is the story, that isn't enough to hang an ITN item on. --Jayron3214:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and See I would say hold off on this until after it has faded out, so that we have all the facts straight before posting it. Otherwise, we will just have to keep updating it and updating it. I would support posting it at that time, especially if the death count rises, which unfortunately looks like it will be the case. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of 0442 here in the UK, so whatever time that is in Louisiana, Isaac is a slow moving hurricane approaching 80mph moving at 8mph towards the west/northwest of New Orleans. There's nothing yet to suggest it will cause the sort of damage or deaths which would satisfy our criteria for front page inclusion doktorbwordsdeeds03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used that wording because reports suggested they were either beheaded or were killed by stabbing their throats, not because of any POV. But I changed it now, should be better. --Activism123420:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C: The first bit you pointed out Bzweebl goes without saying, but the second part is what a large array of sources are reporting as being the truth. Most certainly could be re-worded, however. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There have been 42 "green on blue" killings this year: no apparent reason to post these ones rather than all the others. The "party" story is a rather sensationalist presentation of an uncertain story: it is also suggested that they were local government workers, and therefore at political enmity with the Taliban. Opposed parties in a war kill each other is not , sadly, remarkable, but is open to propaganda manipulation. Although the sources given above are "reliable sources", they have this information very much third hand from anonymous "local officials" who are scarcely disinterested parties. All we can really say is that there are reports of such deaths Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Weak because I thought it would be too much for my edit history to contain Taliban: support. This does seem like a significant story. However, are we sure that we have clear certain facts about it? Formerip (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should wait a bit before posting it just to ascertain that the story is 100% correct. The refs above are all reliable references, but Al Jazeera seems to be saying another possible version, whereby Taliban commanders had a feud over 2 girls at the party and thus killed all the rest over them... However, anyone who is fine with both versions or opposes both version can feel free to add their vote here in the meantime. --Activism123421:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is important enough to justify a front page inclusion. The details are horrific but without the POV implied in that sentence, there's more than just a footnote about this many people dying in such circumstances. doktorbwordsdeeds22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support or oppose anything as I have no article to judge. Could we get an article or an update to peruse before we decide if this is main page appropriate? --Jayron3223:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I updated the blurb to include another attack by the Taliban today. I feel it could use some tweaking though, if anyone feels the same I'm open to suggestions. --Activism123423:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. WP:PROSELINE much? No one has dropped a cleanup tag on it yet, but there's any number that could apply that would keep it off the main page. It looks like the news is good and the update is there, but I can't in good conscience yet support an article that ugly. If you could give it a rudimentary clean-up I would feel much more comfortable giving this my full support. After all, this ITN stuff is supposed to be supporting the mission of the encyclopedia in making better articles. ITN stuff doesn't have to be FA or even GA quality, but that article is pretty sketchy... --Jayron3223:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know I don't like it either. An alternative would be to create a new article just for these three attacks today, which I'd do if I get enough support here (even just 2 people supporting). I've begun working on the Taliban Insurgency article in the meantime, and I'll give an update soon. --Activism123400:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the page a bit of an overhaul in terms of aesthetics, prose, date format, references, etc. Hopefully it's better now. There are similar articles on Wikipedia that are lists - proseline is an essay, not a policy. Any other editors can feel free to edit it as well. --Activism123400:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cant put your own nomination as ready, i suppose its COI that way in needing a second pair of eyes. But raead the instructions on the top, nominators cant mark their own nominations as eready.Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. The blurb was about one story, then it was about, two then about three. Why not throw in Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Isaac is expected to reach New Orleans? Blurbs are not really meant to give a roundup of tragic but routine deaths in a warzone. Formerip (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is awful. But, soldiers, insurgents and civilians are being killed every day. How are we to determine which lives lost should appear on ITN (and so by implication, which should not)? I don't know. --RA (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
El Salvador quake
Article:No article specified Blurb: El Salvador is struck by a strong, magnitude 7.3 earthquake and a magnitude 5.4 aftershock, triggering tsunami warnings for the coasts of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama and Mexico. (Post) News source(s):ABC News, Fox News, Reuters Credits:
Nominator's comments: 7.3..? WOW.. well that seems a little bit too strong. It hasnt claimed any lives yet but more reports are to come. And forgive me if the blurb is way too long. I guess it needs some work. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the tsunamis occur and actually cause damage. Per the ABC news article, "There were no immediate reports of damages or injuries" (as well as other reports), so if it was just the quake, we'd not report it. Same if there are actual tsunamis but do no damage. Heck, I'm watching TS Isaac which is said to be ready to hit the US coast down there for an ITN item, but as yet its only caused a few deaths (4?) and minimal damage so it's not yet ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as per Masem. The tsunami warnings element in particular is news tickerish: we'll know whether they amount to anything in a few hours, so why post potentially spurious warnings now? In either event this strikes me as speculative until the full significance of the event can be assessed. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Libyan interior minister Fawzi Abdelali resigns after harsh criticism due to the Mausoleum attack. An aide says he resigned "to defend the revolutionaries". It becomes known that deputy PM Mustafa A.G. Abushagur on Saturday, referring to Friday's desecrations, sent a tweet saying "I have asked the interior and defence ministers to intervene yesterday but did not do their duty to protect these sites." (BBC)(Google Translate)
Article:No article specified Blurb: Police forcefully suppress protests by hundreds of Indians against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh following a coal scandal in India. (Post) News source(s):1, 2, 3, 4, Credits:
Well, this has been the top national news in India since the CAG published the report on its findings. This is the article: Coal Mining Scam, but it needs major updating. Its 9.30 pm here now ... I'll try and do the updates tomorrow morning. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some of the articles in the nom and the deaths are regarding the Assam disturbance which is unrelated (we posted that last mont, not too much of an increment to report) - not aware of any deaths during the anti-corruption protest. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not denying the significance of the scandal, but a demonstration with hundreds of protesters is surely notable only for being a damp squib. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible Oppose (For coal gate scam as mentioned in the blurb) : No one was killed in today's protests. Leave alone, no one was injured. And such protests happen everywhere in a democracy. No doubt that CAG reports $180 billion(approx) loss to the exchequer, but they are presumptive losses only. Has the world, particularly India changed after the protests. The answer is No. Also, the blurb is violating NPOV. Why only Indian PM has been mentioned in the blurb? Meanwhile, Team Anna's movement also didn't figure in ITN. So, why this one??Regards, theTigerKing16:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning oppose. The story is interesting and further reactions could develop as a part of the so called Coalgate, but it is just hundreds of protesters with no reported deaths and didn't hit top news in BBC or AJE. Mohamed CJ(talk)06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I think we just need to wait until the chocolate melts and becomes more silkier and tastier. You know what im saying. This issue is developing. It could get much more interesting in the future. So just wait. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Junior tournament not really noteworthy in its sporting field. We don't usually post U19's tournaments for any sports I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is quite notable amongst the cricket playing countries and I watched the entire match (switching between this one and the test match vs NZ) but its definitely not in the league of the world cup, the ashes, the world t20 or even the IPL which we post every time. Besides, its a youth tournament - do we normally post those ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose U19 says it all, clearly cannot be the highest level of the sport (as US college sport cannot be). Most players on winning squad do not even have articles, participation in this event is not even deemed to push a player over the NATHLETE threshhold. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think with test cricket it makes more sense to post results of key tests that actually determine the rankings. The rankings themselves are somewhat dubious anyway. Thus I think I would have supported the above result had it been nominated. After the last Ashes series, I noted that the number one and number two ICC teams were also playing at the time and we didn't post that despite posting the less significant (rankings wise) Ashes series. The England / India whitewash perhaps should have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -for me cricket barely makes it for ITN. Not really a sport of worldwide interest. But even less so when it is the Under-19 .--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ is somewhat correct. Cricket is big in a handful of countries, but those countries are HUGE: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. For example, the there are 106 ICC members while FIBA has 213; the FIBA Basketball World Cup has seen 54 national teams qualify, while the Cricket World Cup has seen 19 teams qualify; heck even EuroBasket has more teams. The I don't think a typical man on the street in either Guangzhou or Buenos Aires ever watched a cricket match. –HTD14:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket is definitely "less global" than basketball. But apart from football, volleyball and basketball which are played pretty much everywhere, most other team sports are pretty much in the same league: rugby, field hockey, cricket, etc.
Volleyball is one of those sports that everyone plays but no one really cares about. The opposite is true for the likes of rugby and American football. Basketball is somewhere in the middle; in fact basketball is much like the Liberal Democrats as its followers is spread out thinly on many countries, with only relatively few and either insignificant, or small, or both "strongholds". –HTD16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone suggested US football is more notable than cricket. Though HTD's point is sound--there are large parts of the world where cricket has almost zero penetration. I lived in three countries where cricket has virtually no existence--Russia, S Korea, and France.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entries like this are why I think we need tabs for ITN. It would fit a sports tab quite well (along with other significant junior tournaments, such as the World Junior Hockey Championship, but with limited space on the current template, alas, there is no room for such entries. Resolute14:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Consisting of 120 member states, and 21 observer countries which represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population, it is the most important gathering of the Developing Countries. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - yes, an important summit, and has many of the world's officials (although many are low level representatives). But it seems like nearly every month or so there's another world summit with most of the world attending, whether it's on the environment, nuclear weapons, or terrorism, and this one doesn't seem to have a specific agenda that makes it stand out so much. Also isn't making top headlines right now. --Activism123406:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support: Notability is already satisfied as it is an ITNR item. Have fixed the nom to indicate this. The article is way above minimum threshold required, so no argument there as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, looks like it was only recently added to ITNR by User:Wakari07 and while a discussion has been opened, it hasnt been conlcuded. So here are the reasons why it is notable despite NAM having lost relevance in international relations: (1.) 50 countries participating, almost all represented by heads of state. (2.) Highly notable as it is being hosted by Axis of Evil member Iran who has invited both the Hamas PM and the PLO leader to represent Palestine and had initially cancelled the invitation to Saudi Arabia, but now their Sy. Foreign Minister is attending. (3.) UN Secretary General attending summit despite call from US and Israel to boycott and is expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program. (4.) Indian and Pak PM are expected to meet at sidelines. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article should be much more neutral without exclusively focusing on Iran (See "Importance" section of the article). It is a summit of fifty countries, not only of Iran.Egeymi (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAccording to a spokesman of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of the Non-Aligned Movement's 120 member and 17 observer state body, some 50 nations will participate. Attendance at the highest level includes 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime ministers, 9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys. I think it is not usual that too many leaders gather during the year. There are few gathering which can be compared with this one. In addition, if death of one of these leaders is deserved enough to be mentioned in the main page page, it is strange not to mention their gathering while they are alive. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, important multinational conference. However, it might be worth waiting until announcing the end of the conference, when either major announcements mightt be worth incorporating into the blurb, or at least the reader following the link will have substantive information about what has been discussed/resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very minimal news coverage (e.g. nowhere on the BBC website). Just seems to be a bunch of leaders getting together for some photo ops and speeches without real policy. Would change if there's a significant development at the conference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but agree with Tone. This is a postable summit, but we only want to post it once, which we should do if something earth-shattering comes out of it. If that doesn't happen, then we can post the fact that it has wrapped up. Formerip (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main part of the event is 30 and 31 August, when the leaders will gather. So we can postpone this debate to 30 August.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- The only thing that makes this summit any less notable than other big ones is the US opposition to it, but detracting from the summit because of that would be POV. This is far more notable than G20, which is ITNR but has far less attendees. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The interactions between these countries is significant, particularly given the presecence of a number of major oil producers. "Weak" because while a lack of interest from the US, EU and China does not automatically make something non-notable, there is an obvious effect on the level of coverage. —WFC— 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the fact that the main days of summits are 30 and 31 August and the major decisions will made at that time, the subject is per-mature now. Therefor I accept that it is not a good decision to put the article on the main page before 30th.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to disagree, but I don't see it's ready, as we have 4 opposing and 5 supporting, and 3 others saying we should wait until a notable decision is made at the conference. Not something I'm going to relentlessly pursue further, but just felt that I should mention this. --Activism123405:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Wait to see if anything concrete comes of this. If not we can post the closing. I don't see the point in posting the opening: if the summit is significant enough for an ITN posting it will be as a result of concrete actions or resolutions being agreed, not simply by virtue of having taken place. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support - making sufficient (close to top) coverage on outlets like BBC, also death toll is pretty high, we haven't had a lot of crashes recently that resulted in this many deaths, and it's in China. I'll go ahead and start an article, regardless of whether it makes it to ITN. --Activism123405:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - worst accident in Chinese history since a fire on an overcrowded bus last year kill 41 people. This is mentioned in the article as well. --Activism123406:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please try to avoid creating articles on events like this where there may be short term notarity but no long-term notability. I dunno if there's articles like "2012 transportation accidents" or something where this ITN-worthy event should be covered, but presuming long-term notability is very premature here. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article here and changed the info in the ITN template to updated. Feel free to add any more info. A map would be useful, but don't know what infobox template to put. --Activism123406:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but this is nothing more than a tragic routine traffic accident. It's on the front page of major outlets websites. So what? We space is cheap. Is it on the front page of the print edition? Even if it is, so what? Cars drive on the road and crash just like rivers flood during a monsoon. It's not news. --IP98 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support After update. High Death toll, and major news in China (You know, China - one of the worlds fastest growing countries in various theatres?) I cannot believe that someone would oppose this because the western media gave it no attention. Unbelievable. It seems stories such as the non-news sensationalist story of the shooting in NYC is what some people will only support when it comes to incidents involving deaths. This "Not relevent in my country, don't care! Can't see it on the front page, don't care!" mentality is REALLY annoying. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I didn't oppose this because the western media didn't give it any attention. In fact, "front page of BBC.com" was used as a grounds for support, which I was challenging. How is this incident any different from monsoon floods? --IP98 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I did nominate the monsoon rains in India/Pakistan (got rejected though), but I think a difference here is that this is a road accident in China with a high death toll. --Activism123421:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have not posted accidents of a similar scale before, and this is neither going to have huge readership interest nor will it showcase a worthy article. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...this is neither going to have huge readership interest..." False. 36 people dead in a single motor vehicle accident will easily capture a reader's attention. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"False", eh? The bus crash article peaked at 447 views three days ago [6] while the article on Phyllis Diller got over 6,000 views yesterday and got ~250,000 on each of the two days after her death was announced. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regardless of where it happened, it's a high death toll for a single accident, and it's pretty rare. We've posted at least one accident like these before, and we posted the 39 deaths in the Colombian refinery, so we're not out of line if we post it. The article is in good shape and is entirely sourced, so we should be okay to post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The significance of the refinery fire isn't the causalities, but the incident itself. Refineries don't explode all that often. On the other hand, tanker trucks crash and burn all the time, like this one from yesterday. It's simply not news, and we're not a death ticker. --IP98 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Libya: Unnamed organized assailants bulldoze a Sufi mosque with graves, in broad daylight in the centre of the Libyan capital Tripoli. It is the second such razing of a Sufi site in two days. De facto head of state Mohamed Yousef el-Magariaf tells reporters: "What is truly regrettable and suspicious is that some of those who took part in these destruction activities are supposed to be of the security forces and from the revolutionaries." (Reuters via Yahoo! News)
Thirty-seven Chinese nationals, arrested in Angola due to their alleged involvement in criminal acts, are extradited and due to be tried in China. (BBC)
The Voyager 1 space probe becomes the first human-made object to successfully exit the Solar System and enter Interstellar space, and to an extent, becoming the first Interstellar probe, pioneering Interstellar exploration. (NASA)
Ready Article has no outstanding issues and overwhelming support. Only a two-sentence update so far, but covers the essential fact of his death; I don't think anyone disputes the notability here. Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but The update doesn't meet the minimum. Also while we rush to support this (and I think we're right to), aside from being the first man on the moon, he hasn't really done anything notable in the last 40 years. We will do well to remember this nom the next time a "lesser" death nom gets pooped on. --IP98 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Although the "Death" section is extremely brief at this point in time, the quality of the rest of the article describing Armstrong's life makes up for it. This section will presumably be updated as more details are released. SpencerT♦C19:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PULL Not updated. I've just gone through a sequence of three edit conflicts attempting to point that out and strip the ready tag. In our excitement to get this posted we've forgotten what ITN is for. Is a single sentence really highlighting updated content or has this simply devolved to a news ticker? Hell, according to the criteria information present in the blurb does not count towards the update requirement when repeated in the article. Therefore we are talking about no update. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
"The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable". You're entitled to your shouty-vote, of course, but I think this subjective call was a good one. Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about a zero sentence update: simply reporting the fact of his death is mentioned in the blurb so does not count. I don't see any reason for fudging the update criteria for stories like this: waiting on a good update encourages a good update to be made. Too many times in the past we have seen early posts on the ground that the article will naturally be expanded in due course, only that never comes to pass. The comment above isn't a vote, my vote was actually in support if you have missed that. This is commenting on a breach of policy. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
In any case, calling the previous form a "zero sentence update" was some rather creative counting; the two sentences explaining the causes and place of Armstrong's death self-evidently entailed more information than was in the blurb. I won't object further if others want to pull, but this seems well within our very subjective rules. Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Perennial image alignment problem): is Syria meant to look like the moon? Maybe it soon will, but perhaps when Armstrong gets posted, a picture of him could be posted at the same time? 86.171.12.229 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there are a couple things you have to do related to images so it takes a bit more time to get it up. Which image of Armstrong do we want? A recent one, or one from the moon landing era? SpencerT♦C20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes looks so bizarrely amateurish that I'd even delay posting until it could be sorted. It's a joke. (Would suggest same as appears at top of his article, but current looks fine). 86.171.12.229 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - (e/c) It's obvious that Neil Armstrong has notability for walking on the moon, there is no doubt about that. However, as someone else pointed out, he has not done anything notable since then, and he did die at an old age - according to our current DC standards, that's not normally sufficient to warrant a posting, and certainly not at this rate (less than an hour!). Bearing that in mind, there's no point in pulling the blurb now, I just think it would be worth noting that we ought to have a minimum discussion time to make sure issues with updates and blurb clarity are sorted out and reviewed prior to committing to the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Once again'? It's not like it happens all the time. This was a unique case. It was absolutely clear this was sufficiently notable, and it was absolutely certain that the article would be updated sufficiently in due course. Furthermore it was a Good Article. Waiting in this case makes ITN slow. Yes we're not a new ticker but this was a special case. There was also a consensus for immediate posting, which overrules our normal procedures.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Johnsemlak and Spenser. Sometimes a quick post is OK. Also it is a fine article and worthy of having a pointer to on our front page. Jusdafax03:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick-post in the case of straightforward deaths of someone highly notable is usually not a bad thing indeed. I would of supported this nom...but you know, being in the UK I was in bed at the time XD --Τασουλα (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable in terms of both the refinery's capacity and death toll. Major media cover the news, too. However, the article needs further update.Egeymi (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppportonce updated - Top news on BBC and Al Jazeera, so no problem for notability. But article does need the usual 5 sentence update. Re-marking this as not updated. Khazar2 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly falls within our criteria for such tragic events. I agree with Khazar that an article update is required, but that doesn't hinder my support for the nomination as a whole doktorbwordsdeeds14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment or FYI, the article is updated, but an editor continuously deletes the details of the explosion. Can someone care about it? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.jpg)