{{archive top|result=As the nomination template says, "Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it." So, the importance has already been established. Given it's still more than twelve hours before kickoff, the update is certainly not there yet. Please wait until late in the game or after its conclusion before nominating. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
{{ITN candidate
| article = Super Bowl XLVII
| article = Super Bowl XLVII
Line 43:
Line 42:
:::As an aside, it would need a prose update too..[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 17:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
:::As an aside, it would need a prose update too..[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 17:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' but disagree to include the score in the blurb, as we usually do it with other sport events.--[[User:Kiril Simeonovski|Kiril Simeonovski]] ([[User talk:Kiril Simeonovski|talk]]) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' but disagree to include the score in the blurb, as we usually do it with other sport events.--[[User:Kiril Simeonovski|Kiril Simeonovski]] ([[User talk:Kiril Simeonovski|talk]]) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (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).
At least 33 people are killed in Kirkuk, Iraq, when a suicide bomber detonates a truck packed with explosives outside a police headquarters and gunmen disguised as officers tried to storm the compound. (Reuters)(BBC)(ITV)(Sky News)
Iran indicates the possibility it will attend talks on its nuclear program in Kazakhstan if it believes intentions behind them are "authentic". (Al Jazeera)
Conflict is stalemated and weve had this on for a long time. I think its time to nominate individual items of notability lest it becomes a banner for the event. Should this be removed?Lihaas (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The protesters clashes with police outside the presidential palace in Cairo, Egypt, after a week of violence in which more than 60 people were killed. (Reuters)(BBC)(CBC News)
Oppose. A statement of policy in this ongoing dispute is not significant enough for ITN. I think we would need an actual confrontation, involving weapons fired or some other aggravating factor to get something about this ongoing dispute posted. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dispute as a whole is notable, and should be posted in some form to ITN. While a political statement is not ideal for ITN, the important point is to post something about it. Thue (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't post something about this ongoing dispute for the sake of posting it; we should only post important, significant developments in it- and a statement of policy doesn't rise to that level, especially a statement that isn't really that surprising. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am Japanese and it's more than important for us. The possibility of an armed conflict with that unnamable country (there have been flag burning and anti-Japan protests in China) is really scary. We never won anything with wars. Hope the U.S. supports us. Kotjap (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said it's not important; that's not the issue. There is no single event here to hang our hat on to have a blurb posted about this ongoing event. I'm American and I would oppose any similar event involving the US being posted(I opposed posting the attack on the US embassy in Turkey below). There was no armed confrontation, large number of casualties, or other aggravating factor here. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policy Statements simply aren't posted. We didn't post the recent US administration policy change about women soldiers on the front line, nor the UN report below for that matter. Comparisons with the US hurt rather than help the nomination. (Oppose) μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The statement is startlingly bold and is widely In the News. The article is quite good, though the update is one sentence, and is an enlightening read on what could become a flashpoint in a regional conflict that would draw other countries in. Also becomes a reason to build up armed forces in Japan, which is controversial in its own right. Jusdafax23:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I don't think I've ever supported a public statement before, but as Jusdafax says, this is "startlingy bold." Considering Japan's military history and the coverage this conflict has been getting across the world, I have to support this for ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I nominated this article under a different blurb a few days ago. This is a high-interest story given that the dispute has been at or near the top of international news for several weeks now. I know that we don't have a "sexy blurb" to go with any of the developments, but I'm willing to put that aside given that major news sources are giving this story attention, and the article is in decent enough shape. Given all of that, I think that I can't pose any objections to putting the dispute in some form on ITN, because it clearly is in the news. --Jayron3202:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing how recent events merit an mention in the article that meets ITN update standards. I think Senkaku_Islands_dispute#2013 says what needs to be said about what happened. I might be persuaded to support if there is enough relevant, notable information used to update the section, not meaningless fluff. SpencerT♦C03:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I too agree embassy attacks are generally noteworthy, but the attack took place at the gate and did not harm anyone other than the deceased security guard. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little impact. The headline indicates something that would have been really ITNworthy, had the staff of an American Embassy taken it upon themselves to bomb the capital city of a NATO member. Kevin McE (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Explosion at Pemex HQ
Article:Pemex (talk·history·tag) Blurb: An explosion in a building next to the Pemex headquarters in Mexico City kills at least 32 people and injures over 100 (Post) Alternative blurb: An explosion at Pemex headquarters in Mexico City kills at least 32 people and injures over 100 News source(s):BBC Credits:
Nominator's comments: Currently unexplained explosion in a 54-storey skyscraper in Mexico City with large death toll, expected to rise, and many, many injuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explosion occurred in the offices adjacent to the skyscraper, not in the skyscraper itself. Nonetheless, strong support, though I also recommend we wait until more details become available about the nature of the explosion, and once we can get a lock on the number of those affected.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the significance of the event; the current target article probably has the bare minimum of information for posting (5 sentences). Recommend posting this now, but this event is likely to generate its own article, and we can change the bold link when and if the article becomes worthwhile. The event is clearly significant enough for ITN, based on the prominence I am finding in reliable news sources. --Jayron3215:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that article still needs expansion. Per Wikipedia:ITN#Updated_content, the 5 sentence expansion is the minimum requirement for an existing article, a brand new article about the event needs three full paragraphs of good content. The current article falls short in that regard. If this is posted the bold link should point to the main Pemex article. Once the article on the explosion is expanded past the minimum requirements, we can make that the bold link. --Jayron3216:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update agree that 2013 Pemex explosion is the right pick, and that it needs expansion. Unlike the TV news, WP can wait until multiple sources are pulled together and a more complete picture is available. It's not a race. --IP98 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the 2013 Pemex explosion article is currently incorrectly stating the explosion happened in the building. It needs an update, we definitely can't post until it reflects current thinking (i.e. that the explosion occurred in a neighouring building). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An explosion at the office headquarters of Mexico's state-owned oil company killed 25 people and injured 101 on Thursday as it heavily damaged three floors of a building, sending hundreds into the streets and a large plume of smoke over Mexico City's skyline[2] ? I read something about it being in an anex building, but it looks like it took out 2 floors of the main building in the process. --IP98 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When two major sources are reporting different numbers, the smaller number should be selected, appended with "at least" to account for any possible error. The BBC are not infallible.--WaltCip (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have clarified: Financial Times, Reuters, The Guardian, Sky News, CNN all say "at least 32". Perhaps you read something unintentional into my words, which were meant to imply the fact that Europe has been awake and aware of this story for the last eight hours while most of America hasn't. But thank you for your advice on how to write a blurb, I'll bear it mind hereafter.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb I have added an altblurb that sidesteps the exact location and links to the explosion article--which could use work, but is technically updated. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready? This should go up if there are no other issues, unless we want to be three or four days behind as we were with the Israeli elections and Pham Duy. One of the points of ITN is to link the reader to the article. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Article has no major problems, widespread support. I've marked this as ready to alert another admin to post (I've voted so I won't post). Also, I would support the altblurb, it is more concise and easier to read. --Jayron3220:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well as far as all the RS go, it wasn't actually at the HQ, it was near the HQ. Unless things have changed, the alt blurb (which was my original blurb) is incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At doesn't mean "inside the confines of". That would be "in". "At" can mean "in the vicinity of" just fine. It appears the explosion was on the grounds of the Pemex headquarters campus, though not in the specific skyscraper. That also meets the definition of "at" pretty well. --Jayron3221:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your lesson. In any case, the new article is not great, lots of bare URLs and a whole unref'd section, we should not post this to the main page before it's resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've solved the problem with the unreferenced section. The other problem (bare URLs) is not an orange- or red- level problem, and as such is not a hinderance to ITN posting. That falls under WP:PERFECTION; the bare links are not ideal, but are sufficient. --Jayron3221:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous work. Let's get it on. (I still think "at" the headquarters is misleading, it was "near" not "at", but if want to go with that, fine by me...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re the bare links, for some reason I cannot capture the text to copy and paste from some of them, everything else I am working on, and can use some help rather than some more tags. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note, the piss poor referencing method has now been fixed, but some editors are insisting on inserting masses of unreferenced timeline text. Please stop that, especially now this on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about piss poor, someone seems to have a bug up his ass about something, but the section referred to is fully referenced and the fact it was being worked on while the article was posted is not a good reason for such hostile and beyond the point comments being posted here after the fact. μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential three-time major of New York. Not a former head of state, but New York is more populous than many nations. Did quite a bit after being mayor as well. --LukeSurltc13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As far as mayors go, he's notable. He had remained politically involved even after serving in office, but he's no Ted Kennedy.--WaltCip (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is this? Are you commenting on Koch's sexuality and the Chappaquiddick incident? This is in no way constructive, and I see it as degrading and offensive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an off-colour political joke that pokes fun at the Chappaquiddick incident and the notion that its significance bolstered Ted Kennedy's notability. Kurtis(talk)13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant cultural and political icon, his notability extends far beyond the mere label of his office. I understand that many people voting here may not have much memory of the 1980s and may not be Americans, but he was a major national figure during that decade. If you base your position solely by the name of the office he held, you completely miss the boat on this one, and are vastly underestimating the kind of national figure Ed Koch was. --Jayron3216:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jayron, iconic figure, US Congressman, executive for 12 years of jurisdiction with greater population than Ireland, Denmark, New Zealand, or Israel, one of few US congressional and municipal figures recognizable nationally and internationally, brought great world city back from bankruptcy, responsible for NYC renaissance of 80's and 90's, and of huge reader interest for a non-sports, non-entertainment figure. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Jayron32 noted, Koch was far more prominent and influential than his political titles suggest (and he remained so after leaving office). —David Levy22:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was certainly regarded as very important; the mayor of a city with a population larger than many states and some entire nations has a high profile and influence. People paid attention to what he said. His policies largely rescued NYC from its major financial problems of the 1970s. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post the election of the mayor of New York, or Tokyo, Mexico City, Beijing, Jakarta, Mumbai, etc. We didn't post the election of the first gay premier of Ontario, which also has a higher population than many countries (such as Israel mentioned above). We spat upon elections in an Indian state that had a population of above 100M. What happens when Giuliani dies? He was in charge on 9/11. I think this is a mistake. I don't advocate pulling it, but his only claim to fame was a beloved former mayor of New York. --IP98 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, Koch's impact exceeded the level typically associated with the elected offices he held, and he remained prominent via political and nonpolitical activities in the decades that followed. —David Levy01:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As David said, that isn't his only claim to fame. We're also not talking about posting his election; I wouldn't support that- but his notability goes beyond that. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's little point in going on about this. Yes, Giuliani will be posted when he dies, as will Red Ken and Mayor Chirac. None of this should be shocking. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed the point wouldn't be obscure, the first mayor of Paris since 1871, a storied and controversial 18 years in office. He'd be postworthy on that alone, even if like Koch, Chirac was never president of the US. But if your intention is just to disagree with everything that is said it's not necessary; your discomfort has already been noted and the nomination is moot. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
South Korean media reports claim that North Korea has been placed under martial law with another nuclear test considered to be imminent. (The Telegraph)
A teacher suffers scrapes and bruises and a 14-year-old boy is shot in the back of the neck and suffers a non-life-threatening wound at Luther Judson Price Middle School, a newer Atlanta Public Schools facility in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. The boy is stable at a hospital and the suspected student was safely disarmed by a resource officer and arrested. (NBC News)(CBS News)(Fox News)(BBC)
The New York Times claims that Chinese hackers have broken into their computers and stolen passwords of high-profile members and reporters over the past four months, around the same time the paper began an investigation involving wealth accumulation by relatives of PremierWen Jiabao. (CNN)(The New York Times)
Serbia's Prime MinisterIvica Dačić, who was flashed by a mode] without underwear masquerading as a television interviewer, launches an investigation into how he became the target of the prank. (Daily Mail)(The Sun)
Lean oppose. Is this really new news? The legality of the settlements has always been one of the primary disputes; now we just have some in the UN saying that(and I don't think the UN has ever held the opposing view). This almost certainly will not change anything on the ground there or Israeli policy. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support it's a report, not a binding resolution, but it does decree that the Israeli settlements are blatantly illegal. The fact that everyone knows this, and that Isreal has ignored previous resolutions doesn't detract from the significance here. A binding security council resolution declaring Israel in violation of article 49 and calling on the government to withdraw would be an easy support. Israel would still ignore it though. --IP98 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Someone opines on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute" is hardly special. Especially when it comes from a political agenda-driven body such as the UN Human Rights Council. Resolute17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I disagree with Resolute's characterisation of the UNHRC, but I agree with the conclusion: this is still just 'a committee gives a non-binding opinion'. Not really news. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian sources claim that the true objective of the raid was a weapon research center northwest of Damascus and that two people were killed in the action. (BBC)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Similarly unsure. As a group the Andrews Sisters are notable, but it's difficult to say whether this notability filters down to the individual members. Currently the death update for Patty Andrews is a single sentence. One good way I've found of assessing notability is to see if an ITN-quota update in relation to the individual's death reads well in the article, or if it clearly looks overdone. --LukeSurltc14:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what Patty complained about according to The New York Times, "Every time we got an award, it was just one award for the three of us.” -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic 40's figure with great influence on history of pop music. Once this is updated let's put both this and Pham Duy up. μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull immediately I cannot understand how this can be posted with no extant article on the topic, which implies that there is a reduced or no notability at all. Note that there are many similar cases throughout history with separate articles (e.g. Brother Grimm, Brontë family, etc.). Furthermore, the number of articles on the English Wikipedia is sufficient to state that there must be an article on a topic to be featured on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The people you mentioned are noted for their individual contributions; the Bronte family never wrote books together, but books individually. Others, like the Andrews Sisters do have combined articles because they are notable for what they did together. See the Wright brothers: it's not like we wouldn't post them because they don't have individual articles (assuming they died recently). SpencerT♦C18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which are stubs that could potentially be merged to the central article. The point is that there are examples of both cases throughout Wikipedia, and I don't believe that removal from RD should be dependent on the existence of individual articles. SpencerT♦C06:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely the removal should depend on the existence of article, but it should always draw a line of sufficiency on something. I opine that there is some notability beyond Patty Andrews, but it really strikes me that there is no single article about her.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Strongly oppose blurb, but strongly support inclusion. The launch is significant, however whether it makes South Korea the "eleventh country to perform an orbital launch" is debatable because the rocket they used is mostly Russian. I would strongly advocate a more neutral blurb. I have added a proposed alternative to the template: "South Korea conducts the first successful launch of the Naro-1 rocket, placing the STSAT-2C satellite into orbit." --W.D.Graham11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support concept of posting, but blurb should clarify that it was the first launch from their own territory, as they have put satellites into orbit using other nations' rockets previously. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alt blurb. But if we can post SK getting a half Russian rocket up after the 3rd attempt, we can definately post Irans launch. --IP98 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - SK already has a space programme - this is just a change of launch location and vehicle. And the original blurb is rather telling: being the eleventh country to attain a particular distinction isn't terribly notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "change of launch location and vehicle" is the whole point. They can now do it themselves instead of paying other nations to do it. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly free to question this type of story's presence on ITN/R, but until it is removed from there this story can still go up assuming the quality is OK. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we post more than 4 golf stories every year. Posting the 11th country to reach this status is waay rarer than the golf postings. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The UK announces it will deploy 330 military personnel to Mali and other West African countries in support of French forces operating in the area. (BBC)
Support pending update I would say most commercial flight plane-crashes are significant enough due to their nature, so I would say this should be posted. What's going on with plane crashes in Kazakhstan? That's the second one in 2 months, and at least the third in the last few years or so. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the article gets extended. This is a moderately significant commercial plane crash, and while I agree that it's striking there have been so many in Kz lately, they aren't so plentiful that they can be treated as routine. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think a plane crash is intrinsically notable enough. This one had a relatively low death toll; news coverage seems very much below what we'd expect for an ITN item.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. While tragic, I don't feel the death toll is high enough to post this, unless there is some aggravating factor (like the dead being all children, or the crash was due to a hijacking/terrorist act). 331dot (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't post bus crashes even if they have more than 20 victims. Unless something makes this crash interesting I don't see the point in posting it. Thue (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
French troops take over Timbuktu Airport as they enter the city without any resistance from the Islamists. Residents report that the French now control all access to the city. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: An update on the conflict in Mali, which seems to be reaching a decisive point. Also the loss of the institute, and the ancient manuscripts within, is of encyclopaedic importance. --LukeSurltc22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general, though I would just have a blurb that states that a joint force has captured Timbuktu, and leave the aftermath to the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until someone bothers with a five sentence update for at least one of the articles. Hint. Hint. Otherwise this will be three days old if it's ever posted. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Timbuktu Manuscripts might be the more pertinent article. By the nature of the fact this happened in Timbuktu, a part of the world synonymous with being remote, it may take a little time for reliable news sources to appear. --LukeSurltc08:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for notability. I agree with Luke that the article to be linked should be Timbuktu Manuscripts. The Ahmed Baba Institute is (was) a comparatively uninteresting modern building. The invaluable heritage is made up of the manuscripts. Currently there is an update of two sentences - a bit feeble. --RJFF (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update reports seem to be mixed on what has actually happened to the manuscripts/libraries.[6] As we definately do not wish to be later discovered to be wrong on ITN we should probably refrain from posting a story on the manuscripts now. The general status of the war however could be an item. LukeSurltc18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to post this based on the support for the notability of the event, however none of the potential target articles has a sufficient update. If someone could do so, we could get this up on the main page. --Jayron3219:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not sure how perpetual the conflict will eventually be and if there are articles constantly being updated. Also, I'm not sure how feasible 2 stickies are, so we'd also need to decide if the Syria sticky still should be there or not. SpencerT♦C01:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - This is still speculation at the moment. Wait for the evening to see if this is what she actually announces. --LukeSurltc16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC) (this comment is now out-of-date)[reply]
Wait - This appears just to be a rumour so far. Obviously support if the announcement is an abdication.(see below) Do not assume that the new king, if there is one, will use his given name as a regnal name. It's likely, but not certain. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok we wait. Please note however that the Dutch Prime Minister will have a television address to the Nation right after the Queen's so this speech by the Queen is probably about a most unusual matter. Hektor (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think the speculation is probably correct. Abdication is something a family tradition with the Dutch royal family. But I wished to warn against pre-announcing anything ourselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a thing that might be worth discussing now: what if she announces her abdication at a future date? Would we post now or wait until the official changeover? I'd be inclined to do the former (and maybe post again at the changeover if it's weeks or months away). --LukeSurltc17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination would be to wait until the actual abdication date if it's not in the next few days. Given how rarely heads of state change in most monarchies, I expect we'll be posting any subsequent coronation as well, and three announcements for one event is probably overkill. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal would be to have one posting for the abdication announcement (i.e. now), and one posting for the coronation or oath of the new King. The first posting would highlight the former Queen, and the second one the new King. Hektor (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hektor's reasoning. Change of head of state is clearly a highly significant event. I also support Medeis' excellent suggestion of Queen Beatrix as FA on Queen's Day, rather than repeating the ITN item then. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Without regard to consensus to post, the update, as of now, is a bit light. Could someone expand this before it gets posted? There's only 1 sentence of text in the "Abdication" section. Surely there's some commentary that can be cited or other reactions to the announcement to beef this up to the 5 sentences necessary? What about the rationale for her abdication? Something should be added to bring this up to minimum standards before we post it. --Jayron3219:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support my alt blurb. Our (unfortunate) habit of using the historic present would otherwise imply that she has now stepped down. I suspect Charles will be propping up copies of the Dutch papers against his mother's cereal bowl in the morning. Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've updated the section a bit with some info from my usual suite of major news outlets. It looks like most are running the same facts (probably using the same wire source), there's not been enough time for 'reaction' stories to be written. Someone who can read Dutch news could probably add more, but I think, with Kevin's altblurb, it's sufficient to go now. --LukeSurltc20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - A minor thing, really, but should "30 April" be changed to "April 30"? That would make the date format consistent with the formatting in the OTD section. How does date formatting/ENGVAR usually work on the main page, anyways? --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the addition of the topic, we've got work to do. First, wouldn't the launch be notable so an article should be created on it? If so, we should create that and use it in the blurb. I suppose sends a monkey to space would be the best option, but that article needs a lot of work. My impression from the article was that they are launching the same rocket like, which seems unlikely. RyanVesey15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is enough new information entering the encylopedia as a result of this news story to merit an ITN item. Reading the news stories apparentely it's a charismatic move, but of little technical significance. --LukeSurltc16:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On cosideration oppose. While it may be the first Iranian monkey, gloabally speaking, sending a monkey into space isn't that new or significant, and this'll be just a snippet in the Animals in space article (if that). Technically speaking, while charismatic, this doesn't represent is not a particuarly significant technical development for the Iranian space agency, and thus the update to Iranian Space Agency is going to be slender (currently it stands at two sentences). All-in-all there has not been a sizeable enoiugh update to the content of the encylopedia as a result of this news story to merit an ITN posting. --LukeSurltc17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update? I see it phrased in future tense under "animals in space", unless there is a different section I should be looking at? --IP98 (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hahahahaha, for the love of all things holy underneath the eyes of God, we can't be serious? Really? This is not for the front page of Wikipedia, never mind actual newspapers. Simply not serious, important, notable, or credible a story. Utterly laughable that it's been suggested here, beyond a joke. Of course I oppose this - I'd be a clown wearing high-heels if I didn't oppose. doktorbwordsdeeds16:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have an argument. This is a comical novelty story of no importance. I can't begin to believe why we're even considering it. ITN is not here to publicise these kinds of self-generated "punchlines", (see our rightful objection to Occupy). ITN is not a news aggregator. It's certainly not Buzzfeed. This must be the best laugh I've had all year doktorbwordsdeeds17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. I don't support this posting myself. But by opposing it with a witty set of ripostes instead of a measured argument, you make it less likely that the admin will take your point seriously. Even a much wittier reply than yours still comes off as 'I don't like it' if there isn't some useful substance there. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason why my initial reason would be considered invalid. We consider whether stories are serious, important, notable or credible. This story is not serious, important, notable or credible. If I have to find whichever hundred or so policies are linked to those four things, I'd happily source them doktorbwordsdeeds17:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Calling this valid nomination "not serious" or "credible" is a bit of a stretch, but I would question how significant a milestone it is. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - the "sufficient" update to the article looks like two short sentences, is that a "sufficient" update? Also, do we actually have independent evidence that this monkey did actually return alive and wasn't burnt to a crisp on re-entry or do we just take Iran's word for it, since clearly they wouldn't make anything like a successful "manned" space voyage up, would they? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Despite a little sparring with Doktorbuk and Rambling Man upthread, I'm actually dead against this nomination. Sending helpless research animals into space is not the cutting edge of technology these days, and the fact that it's Iran that's done it, on the gazillionth attempt, doesn't seem to add a great deal to the significance. While national firsts can be significant, they aren't intrinsically so. Sending people into space (and getting them back alive) is a rather more significant achievement, and we should perhaps reserve national (and corporate) milestone announcements for such events. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly sorry for having been snippy. No-one dies if we mess up here. I should take myself less seriously. Thank you both for being good-humoured. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We now believe what the Iranian authorities tell us as part of their propaganda machine? So if North Korea reported that they had done the same, you'd just accept it? What does that even mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to derail the thread debating with you on the authenticity of the statements of the government of Iran. Is there, or is there not, a requirement for stores to get "independent verification"? The story has been reported in the Guardian and Al-Jazeera. It's a simple yes or no. Does the requirement exist? Yes or no. Kindly answer with a simple yes or no. --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No requirement, but the blurb would therefore have to be changed to "...is claimed to have successfully sent...", because that's what the sources say. You could -- as Rambling Man here is doing -- therefore argue that the notability rests entirely on whether or not it actually did happen, which would require independent verification. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per LightGreenApple. News sources are just that, sources, and this is In the News. I also agree with those noting that the recovery is significant. Jusdafax06:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, more opposePoopy Joe: We will always remember. This is one of those "Oh, that's cool" stories, but not really all that significant enough unless it was the first time an animal other than a dog has been in space, so if I'm wrong or if he did some kind of dance or significant scientific achievement while up there, I may switch to support. This would be a nice DYK hook. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 12:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least twenty members of the Afghan National Police have been killed in bomb attacks over the past day with eight police officers killed in the latest attack in Kandahar. (Reuters)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Yes, but he was listed as a consultant for the documentary, not its writer or creator. Frankly, this and Pham Duy should be posted, since each is more notable than the blank space. Especially Duy's nomination where his primacy in VN music is undenied. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get your knickers in a bunch, there is no such thing as absolute notability--it has always been a matter of the relevant relative application of the standards. If the standards were absolute the calculation would be a mechanical formula, no editors needed. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't reply with civility, Wikipedia is not the place for you. 22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I evidently missed with my fourth stab at the tilde key last night, (Kevin McE)
There are quite a lot of Pulitzer prizes given out every year, far more than (for instance) Nobel Prizes, and they're only for work done in the United States. Making no comment on this particular individual, a Pulitzer prize does not, by itself, satisfy DC #2. --LukeSurltc23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unready I have changed my vote to support, but this article is not updated by five lines of prose, or even two. It won't be posted, regardless of support, if it's not updated. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Many listings on ITN/R are clearly becoming less and less relevant. This is simply not in the news anywhere I visit, can you point me to major news outlets covering this please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support re: notability. Almost all sport, and indeed most human activity (apart from death and taxes), is "niche" by some standard or other. I like that ITN occasionally links to mid-level "niche" encyclopaedia articles, as long as they're in good shape and we're not being ridiculous with the obscurity. Handball isn't that obscure - not that popular in the English-speaking world, but has a sizeable following in Central Europe and Scandinavia. Also an Olympic sport and this is the premier non-Olympic title in the sport. Article is lacking in prose at the moment however. --LukeSurltc18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, whether an individual editor "likes" something or not is entirely irrelevant. It's not "in the news", it's just ITN/R which clearly is not really on the money. Please, show me major news outlets covering this right now, i.e. show me where this is "in the news" for English Wikipedia readers to be interested in its inclusion in the ITN section of the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one, pretty easy to find even with my limited German Der Spiegel. [8] As I said, Team Handball is really a Central-Eurpopean & Scandinavian thing, however one of our roles here is to attempt to compensate for the impact of language and cultural barriers. --LukeSurltc19:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that, but it's like fifth level of Der Spiegel's website, not exactly prominent or "in the news", just being reported, just like Leigh Griffiths' shop-lifting accusations in Glasgow are being reported on the BBC website (and currently on the BBC news homepage....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. And "newsworthiness" aside, the article has virtually no prose at all, it's just a list of results and tables. We held off on posting the Brazil nightclub fire which killed a couple of hundred people because it only had a few sentences of prose. It had more than this article currently contains.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole notion of ITNR as a free pass is problematic, and if this were a major news item surely we wo(uld see three major references from at least two countries appended to the template of this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Spencer. I am still opposed if it amounts to bumping other news at this point, which strikes me as a good deal more notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support While English-language news may not be featuring the handball championship as highly, Spanish-language and other international news does indeed feature it more prominently. (Searching "balonmano" gives results for Univision, Diario AS, and other mainstream international publications). SpencerT♦C20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that the fact we have to delve into minor pages on mainly minor foreign-language websites is indicative of the newsworthiness of this item to our English-reading audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Univision is in no way a "minor foreign-language website". The fact that this is not covered by English-language media is a reflection that handball isn't an American or Commonwealth cultural sport (like cricket) as well as an example of systemic bias. SpencerT♦C23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not "in the news" is it? When Superbowl completes, despite the fact it's US-only, it really is in the news. Globally. Whether we like it or not. Unlike this minor sport and minor tournament, simply not in the news in the English-speaking world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When Super Bowl concludes it's only "in the news" in the US media and very few others. We will see shortly if any prominent German, French, Russian, Spanish, or Italian medium informs about it. Your statement that handball is a niche sport with no coverage in the English-speaking world is worthless since most of the Russian, German, French, Spanish, and other-language media publish their news articles in English as well. Please don't tell me that the news must come from a medium based in a country where English is official language to be understood by an English speaker.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so show me these major news outlets in English-language covering this event on the main sports page, or else it's not actually "in the news" is it? As for Superbowl being "in the US media and very few others", you know that's a complete lie, so you undermine your entire statement with that alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. Accusing people of lying is inappropriate and unhelpful. You are not going to get anywhere be adopting a confrontational and aggressive attitude. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you want something that isn't in the news to be in our "in the news" section? Just goes to show how much work this section of the main page needs.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is updated with sufficient amount of prose to document the final. For those, especially The Rambling Man, complaining that this is a niche sport with no coverage anywhere, we have the ITN/R where you can demand its removal from the list and contest its ITN worthiness with all the arguments you have. There is simply no need to see someone persistently uttering the same argument to everyone who supports this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/R is a joke, as is demonstrated time and time again. We can't rely on those lazy "supports per ITN/R" any more. I'm not demanding its removal from ITN, I'm suggesting it's not worth being on ITN for any good reason, neither for some arbitrary ruling (ITN/R) nor its quality. No-one has adequately demonstrated that this is actually "in the news" apart from a few niche foreign-language websites. It's not suitable for English Wikipedia's main page by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't like it" is not a valid argument for ignoring policy, as you should know. If you don't like the policy that an ITR/R event automatically meets the notability criterion, then start a discussion at ITN/R about whether it should be changed. Judging by the number of people who complain about it here, if you actually did something about it at ITN/R you might well succeed. Neljack (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only is it ITN/R, I think it clearly meets the notability criterion in any case. Handball is a major sport; just because it isn't where most editors live, that doesn't mean we should ignore that. Neljack (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's just untrue: it is in the news. Those of us who support the nomination have pointed you to various stories, but you dismiss them all seemingly because of your rather idiosyncratic views on which news sources count. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean really "in the news". Look above, I gave an example of a Scottish footballer who is "in the news" on the BBC homepage for shoplifting. Neither you nor anyone else here has really provided any evidence of this being covered in any real sense outside minor pages on minor websites. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty lame to try marking your own nomination as "ready". Let someone else determine that given it's abundantly clear there's no reason for something that's "not in the news" to be listed as being "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My understanding is that team handball is fairly popular in much of continental Europe--generally about a second, third or forth most popular team sport. That seems comparable to a sport like rugby (though I suppose Rugby is in fact the most popular sport in a handful of countries). I certainly think this should be the only time we feature handball. It certainly is true that among English speakers handball is a not viewed as spectator sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted The update is sufficient and this is on ITN/R. If there is an issue with this event's listing there, get it removed from there first. -- tariqabjotu01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Standard ITN/R item. Despite Azarenka's win happening just minutes ago, the basic information has already been added to the relevant articles by keen editors. Just need the prose updates, which is usually quotes from post-match interviews etc. --LukeSurltc11:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITN/R. I also suggest to use the precedent and post the conclusion of the women's tournament immediately, and only update the blurb with the conclusion of the men's tournament tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose clearly internationally significant and newsworthy but as Lugnuts notes, the article needs some really serious work. Someone's gone ape with flag icons and bold text. We shouldn't simply "support" items because they're listed in "ITN/R". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Nothing is more useful that a row of mindless "support, notable"'s on an ITN/R article, from people who haven't even looked at the article state! </sarcasm> Thue (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once cleaned up a little. Also, I believe Djokovic is the first man in the Open Era to threepeat. That might be worth a mention in the blurb. Resolute20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now once the article has been cleaned up as per Lugnuts and Rambling Man also someone needs to read up on WP:OVERLINK, then come back and I will support, I also agree with Resolute with a change to the blurb. LightGreenAppletalk to me21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added prose for all the finals played on the Saturday and Sunday. Personally I don't think the overlink banner is needed or article is too linked to preclude posting. There's a lot of linking to players' articles, but that's pretty unavoidable given the nature of the article. --LukeSurltc22:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds worse that it is in practice. Most of that is names in tables, which looks perfectly fine - indeed if "only first entries" were wikilinked the tables would look patchy and messy. Otherwise players are linked the first time they are mentioned in each day's section, which is unusual but suited to the way people are likely to read the article, by jumping down to the day they are interested in rather than reading from start to finish. --LukeSurltc23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does sound worse than it is, try reading the prose on any of the days and you eyes get distracted by all the blue links, if it is going to be linked to from the main page it does need to have the duplicate links reduced, for example Novak Djokovic played 7 matches for an average of over 3 links per match. LightGreenAppletalk to me00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess we remove all the wikilinks from the day-by-day prose. I'm afraid I'm off to work now, so I'll have to leave that to someone else. LukeSurltc08:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previewing changes for a section, I really think we make the article worse, not better, by removing these links. Can we get a third opinion on this please? --LukeSurltc19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Removed lots of excess prose links except in their first occurrence, but left the ones that appeared in separate tables/charts as suggested by WP:OVERLINK. Otherwise, the article is updated. SpencerT♦C05:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (when the article is sufficiently expanded). This is eerily similar to The Station nightclub fire, but with a far higher death toll. I was unable to find a list of the deadliest nightclub fires worldwide, but it appears that few have claimed this many lives, particularly in recent years. —David Levy13:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but strongly prefer original blurb (and article name): the name of the (former) nightclub is not to the forefront of the reporting. Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability re: all above. Article meets minimum standards at the current time, best not to over-expand while story is still breaking. LukeSurltc16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
CommentSupportI'd like to support but a) international coverage is currently lacking and b) the article is in fairly poor shape, several unreferenced paragraphs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the first (of many, I'm sure) English-language coverage of his death. Considering that the LA Times covered his son's death last month, I wouldn't be surprised if they cover his death on Monday. As for "international", so far we've had coverage from Voice of America, Radio France Internationale, BBC, and Radio Free Asia, admittedly all in Vietnamese, but I'm sure given some time they will trickle over to English. DHN (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us who are not familiar with the genre, which will be the vast majority of readers and editors, will need a lot more evidence before we could consider supporting. Writing 1000 songs that are short, forgettable and make no impact on anyone is not a great achievement. Has he won major recognition? Are his songs verifiably among the best selling of their genre? Are their multiple works that discuss his importance in the culture? Was there any official response to his works when they were de-banned in 2005? Can only oppose until we are given grounds to do anything else. Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly he is not well-known outside of Vietnam, but within the field of Vietnamese music, he is a towering figure (alongside with Van Cao and Trinh Cong Son) in terms of influence and popularity. He is a household name throughout Vietnam. Within an hour of his death, virtually all major Vietnamese-language news sources had updated to put news of his death on their front page. DHN (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's sadly not going to convince many about his importance (don't forget the squabbles when people they are familiar with come up...) I doubt if Chrisye's death had been in the past month an RD would have had support, and he may be of comparable standing (in Indonesia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Much like Crisco 1492, I would like to support this, but I'm not convinced Vietnamese music is a broad enough field to post notable figures from. If it was music in general, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is not just an important figure in Vietnamese music, but an important figure in Vietnamese society, period. You can see this by looking at any Vietnamese-language news source now, almost 2 days after he died, it's still front-page news (they've moved on to people's reactions, tributes, and details of his funeral). DHN (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A top artists in one of the world's largest countries (larger population than any in Europe save Russia) with articles in 12 languages. The article needs an update and is still in the present tense, however. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look under the Please do not section above where it says "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." μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Considering we post top musicians in smaller countries like the UK, his death should certainly be enough for RD, and I would argue maybe a full blurb as well. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose No evidence of even the smallest level of international significance. None of the songs mentioned in his article have their own articles.RyanVesey22:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of English-language articles doesn't mean that they're not notable, especially since those who care and know most about his work typically don't know English. In the Vietnamese Wikipedia there's an entire category for his works. DHN (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that they're not notable, I suggested that he's insignificant to those reading this encyclopedia. If he was significant, someone would have written the articles. RyanVesey23:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated The article now reflectes the past tense and meets the five-sentence update requirement. I call on an admin to use discretion and consider posting this. The nominee clearly meets the requirement that he be at the top of his field: "He is considered one of the great musicians of the new musical VN with a massive number of tracks as well as diverse genres..."[19] The opposes above ("I haven't heard of him", "not notable outside one country") are clearly in violation of the guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been established that he meets any of the criteria for including deaths? Where is the consensus that people are satisfied that he meets them? Kevin McE (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who has said "I haven't heard of him" or "not notable outside one country"? I'm not seeing either of those quoted phrases in any of the opposes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he's insignificant to those reading this encyclopedia" looks suspiciously like "nobody speaking English has heard of him", which is decidedly Anglocentric. One need not speak / read English to be highly significant within one's country. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the fact that all of the sources provided are in Vietnamese, including the BBC article, suggests a lack of importance to the English speaking world. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to mention yet again that this is Wikipedia in English, not Anglophonopedia? The fact that the sufficient, reliable sources are in Vietnamese is no obstacle to their relevance. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Our death criteria are very clear. This has no international impact, and this was not an outstanding musician. Ergo, no post.--WaltCip (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, ITN/DC also states that "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region," which he does pass the second part of the criteria. If one of the criteria was met, it can be considered. –HTD16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With sources like this proclaiming him to be "the most important Vietnamese musician of the 20th century" and numerous sources proclaiming to be "one of three most influential", your claim that he was "not an outstanding musician" sounds trollish to me. His death received international coverage, as shown through The LA Times, VOA, BBC, RFI, and Radio Free Asia. DHN (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article seems to suggest a fairly important individual in his field. Decent article quality as well. Can't see what we lose by not posting to the ticker, it's not like we're pushing another entry off. Simple question: is the main page better or worse for linking to this article? Sure, for cultural and language reasons, 99% of people are going to think "eh, who's that?", but then they can click the link and read a decent encylopeadia article, showcasing Wikipedia's ability to cover topics from all countries, languages and cultures. Or we could just have some white space.
The nomination meets or exceeds all criteria. It's updated, sourced, well-written; Duy meets the best in his field criteria. We don't even have a pending discussion on removing Vietnam from ITN because it's so foreign. An admin should use reasonable judgment and post this. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Not sure why this was re-marked not updated after it was. Marking ready given changes of votes from oppose to support and no opposition based on invalid reasons per guidelines.
Are you claiming that the deceased was NOT "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field", or that the field of Vietnamese music is not significant enough? If it's the former, you obviously haven't read the article. DHN (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL this should be overridden if someone says "support" per ITN/DC #1-B. Which I will. Support per ITN/DC #1-B. –HTD04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL this should be overridden if someone says "in what way did he have a significant impact on the region", which I will. --IP98 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO the death section has 4 references, and the LA Times calls him "Vietnam's most prolific songwriter", "captured the strength of his people through years of turbulence" isn't enough to demonstrate his lasting influence? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL –HTD04:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking at some other large wikis, it's in the huge recent deaths section of es, but is not on fr, de, nl or ru. As best as I can tell, it.wikipedia.org doesn't have an ITN section. Looking at other wikis in the region, it's on vi.wikipedia.org (obviously), but id.wikipedia.org and ms.wikipedia.org do not have it. *shrugs*. FYI only. --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this applies for most deaths that we post in the ticker (not full blurb). Dennis O'Driscoll, whom you supported for RD, didn't even have an article in any other language besides English. DHN (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article's traffic over the past several days jumped from virtually nothing to more than 1000 per day without even being on the front page. The Vietnamese article peaked at about 11k per day. DHN (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I can't actually think of a single more famous living Vietnamese person, actors, film directors, writers, politicians included. @User:IP98 I realise that a songwriter makes more difficult cultural transit than a novelist (who can be translated) but Pham Duy can't pass notability for "in the News" then there probably needs to be a note "non-English-language musical artists can never be candidates for in the news, even if they are the most famous there is their country" and that would save wasting time with nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thought I'd posted this earlier. Kpalion has it right: large nation, large diaspora, large creative field. Overall effect: large. Can we post this now, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2013 (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, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
