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.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
A landslide in Papua New Guinea's Enga Province leaves thousands of people missing and presumed dead.
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).
U.S. Representative Trey Radel (R–FL) pleads guilty on all charges of cocaine possession following his arrest yesterday and faces 1 year supervised probation. (The Washington Post)
Nominator's comments: pretty big, and bold, to say hthis 200 year old policy with real repercussions in the past of the numerous intereferences is done. Its no small feat in international relations. Probably hthe biggest "change" the Obama regime has done. Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending a better update of course. Very interesting! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bombardier Aerospace, a Canadian manufacturer, signs a letter of intent to sell Iraq's national carrier five CSeries jets with options for 11 more. (Reuters)
Virginia State Senator Creigh Deeds was stabbed multiple times at his home by his son Austin "Gus" Deeds. His son, Gus was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the home. (ABC News)
George Zimmerman is accused of felony aggravated assault and other charges for interactions with his current girlfriend. (BBC)
In the largest-ever settlement with the U.S. government, banking giant JPMorgan Chase agrees to pay US$13 billion and admits to making serious misrepresentations over mortgage-backed securities. (FOX Business)
Nominator's comments: World renowned biochemist, one of only four to win two Nobel Prizes alongside Marie Curie, Linus Pauling and John Bardeen, elucidated the structure of insulin, holder of many honours in the UK including Order of Merit. Nick (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support full blurb, once article updated. DNA sequencing is among the most important advances of the second half of the 20th century. Not to mention his many other achievements. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, as winning multiple Nobel Prizes is a rarity(he is the only one to win more than one Chemistry Nobel), and indicates someone is at the very top of their field. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD (as reasoning above), Oppose blurb. This is an obituary item, and is being treated as such by the media. Death blurbs are only for when the death (for whichever reason) makes significant news as of itself. --LukeSurltc 14:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that, in practice, plenty of people have had full blurbs for deaths that are not out of the ordinary. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these people? I don't recall such blurbs in the last few months, though my Wiki-presence has not been continual in that period. --LukeSurltc 14:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thatcher was sufficiently notable that her death was more than an obituary item, as evidenced by the presence of our Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article. --LukeSurltc 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that you might not consider this important enough for a blurb; though multiple Nobel prize winners do not pass away every day(there have been only four, in fact). 331dot (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually compiling a list of RDs yesterday and skimmed through all 2013 ITNs, but sadly didn't write down the people who got blurbs. There were more than I'd realised, at least five I think. Besides Thatcher, Roger Ebert, Seamus Heaney, and some others I'm blanking on. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb per Espresso Addict. I don't usually comment on this, but double-nobel should do it for me.(Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Support blurb First to determine the sequence of a protein, which is one of the most significant achievements in the last century of science (and that's not even mentioning his contributions to DNA sequencing). Several core articles (i.e. Genetics and Protein) discuss Sanger's achievements. Teemu08 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb. Significant scientist with a major impact on his field. However, it was his life that caused the impact, not his death. Ergo this is indeed an obituary-style item, which is what RD is for, not a full blurb. Regarding the others who got blurbs recently, most of those I also also argued (or would have argued if I had been around) for RD not a blurb. Also, please don't use 'the last' in the blurb - there could well be others in the future. Simply say he was a two-time Nobel laureate/winner. Modest Geniustalk 15:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. --Tone 15:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus to post at least to RD, whether to have a full blurb can be decided later. --Tone 15:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb I understand the opposes, but the two Nobels in hugely important areas pushes this over the threshold, plus explaining it will be more informative to the reader. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurp, per User:Modest Genius. It's perfectly fine that he is now showcased at the RD slot on the main page, but his death (the event) is not significant.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb per LukeSurl and Modest Genius. Neljack (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: A natural disaster in a place not known for flooding. --Simply south......cooking letters for just 7 years 21:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is a truly rare weather event for this part of the World. That, along with the death toll, seems to make this ITN worthy (but in no way is this a serious disaster, because it isn't in the grand scheme of things).--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Somchai Sun. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unusual disaster in Europe. Egeymi (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly unusual event for Sardinia, made BBC television news headlines, clearly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
opposethe number of calamity wee had recently this is tragically smallLihaas (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems that these were once very rare, but now they have occurred in each of the last three years. Thanks, Global Warming! Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current article requires expansion to meet ITN guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually make a fuss about article quality here, but I agree that this needs more information. As a bit of a weather nerd, I want know more about this phenomenon of a cyclone in the Mediterranean. That seem big news in itself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that article now. It's gruesome. Not just the title, but the whole thing! Sloppy grammar. Sloppy science. Speculation. I'll stick it on my Watchlist and see if I can find the time to work on it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Lots going in Syria beyond the cehcmial attack, this is notable due its strategic location. Also after Qusayr this seems indicate a tide turning as it was the next location for opposition logistical hub. --Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Territorial gains and losses happen every week in Syria. This one is not significantly more consequential than the other territorial gains that Assad has made in recent weeks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a gain and loss, this is a major strategeic advantage.Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Qara links to an article about Egypt. Edited the blurb to direct to the article on the Syrian town. --PlasmaTwa2 19:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant attack making front pages worldwide. --LukeSurltc 16:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw and was coming to nominate it. Its notable despite the relatively low count, that said that is not the only notable Syria related incident today so im not sure about this. Maybe a combined blurb of what I will soon nominate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
Support when article fleshed out properly. I was hoping someone would start this article. High-profile attack with widespread news coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Attacks on diplomatic facilities are notable. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily because this is an attack on an embassy. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly notable not only in terms of death toll but also in terms of its effects on future events and conflicts in the region.Egeymi (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not surprised that this sort of thing has happened in this part of the world and these times, but 22+ dead and 140+ injured is significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some improvements to the article. --LukeSurltc 23:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So have I, though more would be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please have a look at this issue please. I think with the restoration of this section Lihaas has twice deleted we would be good to go. --LukeSurltc 11:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restored all content and moved some per tlk(Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
Minimum requirement is met, but it could use more.
I would add more but suddenly don't feel like these days after my work yields arguments/fights/accusations instead of complementarily adding content as in Kenya and Gunea-Bissau. But maybe someone else can..Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium ruled itself out as a candidate to host the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile and said it would prefer the arsenal to be eradicated close to Syria itself. (AP)
Article:MAVEN (talk·history·tag) Blurb: NASA launched MAVEN; the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN space probe into Earth orbit in preparation for its journey to Mars. (Post) Alternative blurb: NASA launches the MAVEN probe to Mars News source(s):NBC NewsBBC Credits:
Support per ITNR. I've also suggested a better blurb and corrected parts of the template above. I imagine there will be a freely-licensed launch image soon too. Edit: hmm, the space exploration bit of ITNR seems to have changed since the last time I looked at it. Launches of interplanetary probes used to be on there. Modest Geniustalk 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probes are ITNR when they arrive at their destination, or if the launch was a failure. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Interplanetary probes from the major space agencies are becoming more regular, and I would therefore suggest waiting for the outcome of the mission (success or failure), so that the eventual posting at least makes clear why each one is significant. I would make an exception for a first-time effort, such as the Indian launch a little while ago. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major mission with mainstream coverage. Should be a lot of interest in this one --W.D.Graham 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Important and interesting Mars mission, article is well developed, widely covered by the international press. These events might be more frequent but we still rarely post science/tech related items at ITN. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fine ITN item and article. Launch is a good time to run this. Jusdafax 09:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I would question if we need to post this twice- once now and once when it arrives per ITNR(though that is 10 months or so away)- but I don't actually oppose posting this. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think reader interest is likely to be very high at both points, and 10 months is far enough apart. If this was a lunar probe (so only a couple of weeks) I would agree that it doesn't need to be repeated, but Mars is far enough away to be worthwhile. Modest Geniustalk 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 11:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The number of people displaced reaches 1.9 million people. Numbers vary between 1,000-20,000 for estimates about missing people. (NPR)(Voice of America)
Flooding in Vietnam has killed at least 28 people with nine more missing and nearly 80,000 displaced. (Reuters)
Fifty people are killed after a passenger Boeing 737 crash lands in the city of Kazan in central Russia. (RT)
Following the issuance of a rare High Risk for severe weather (only the fifth documented such case in November and also extending to areas further north than any previous known high risk issued in the November through February timeframe), several midwestern states in the United States are placed under multiple tornado watches, with multiple tornadoes touching down, causing at least four deaths and up to 50 injured in the area; one leveled parts of a suburb of Peoria, Illinois. Around six dozen tornadoes occur in total with activity most concentrated in Illinois and Indiana but extending from Tennessee to Michigan. (Peoria Journal Star)(CNN)(NBC News)
Nominator's comments: He also just won the DP World Tour Championship, etc, and it's the 3rd year in a row that Europeans have done something similar (but not quite the same, it was the US Money List in 2011 and 2012) which may make it more notable as indicating a shift in the balance of golf power, or less notable as being similar to what happened in 2012 and 2011. But I've been told to keep it short. And besides I don't much care whether it goes in or not, so unless anybody else wants to speak up for it, I reckon it's headed for the scrapheap.
More Nominator's Comments: Complaints have been made that I don't adequately explain the significance of the double, and that these are two unrelated wins. The wins are related as they are the seasonal points crowns of the two tours. It's also what Stenson calls a 'double-double' because he also won both tour finales, the Tour Championship and the DP World Tour Championship. This source puts it as follows:
A month after winning the FedEx Cup points title in Atlanta, Stenson breezed to the European Tour’s Race to Dubai points title, too, pocketing a combined US$11 million (Dh40.4m) in bonus money and becoming the first member of both circuits to win the seasonal points crowns in the same year. He won the season finales on both tours in the process. “The double-double,” Stenson said. “That’s going to take some beating in the future.”
Perhaps somebody needs to change the blurb to reflect some of this in some way or other, but I'm not sufficiently interested to try to do it myself, and then have to listen to the new set of objections which those changes will presumably cause (and so on), as I've already explained at greater length elsewhere in this discussion. (In fact I now wish I hadn't made the suggestion in the first place, not because I think it was a bad suggestion, but because I just don't think it's worth the hassle, despite my (not particularly successful) efforts to keep out of the discussion, and I currently hope I'll never be foolish enough to give in to the temptation to make any future suggestions, but that's another story) Tlhslobus (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not exactly catchy, is it? Notable, and of mild interest, but that blurb really needs halving.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already post the Majors and the Ryder Cup, there's no need for any more stories about golf. This seems a pretty esoteric record anyway, with no indication (in the blurb or the nomination) for why it's particularly significant. Also, despite being extremely long the blurb doesn't even mention the sport! Modest Geniustalk 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis the combination of these two events isn't an existing recognized accomplishment like the Triple Crown of US horse racing. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not recognized by you, perhaps, but a simple Google of "Stenson fedex" will tell you that many major news outlets are headlining with the double victory, e.g. Daily Telegraph, BBC, ESPN and even the esteemed American outlet Fox Sports declares it an "historic double". So no, not synthesis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MG. No explanation of why this is significant. There is no specific award or other recognition for this "achievement" and neither tournament involved is one of the golf majors. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also disinclined to support a nomination that the nominator is unwilling to stand up and defend, and also states that they "don't much care" if it gets posted; and who also concedes it is not likely to be posted. Suggest closing this nomination. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It seems to me that the fact that I was (and basically still am) not willing to get seriously involved in defending my proposal should be utterly irrelevant. First, as the proposer I would not be any kind of unbiased contributor to a discussion, so arguably it would ideally be preferable if I stayed out of the discussion as far as possible. Second, painful personal experience teaches me that these discussions can get very heated, very exhausting, and can be very unpleasant experiences for at least some people (such as me), so if the proposer were somehow obliged to get involved, this could be a major deterrent to many reasonable people wishing to put forward reasonable proposals. Thirdly, unless my memory is playing tricks on me, any such requirement seems to violate at least the spirit of a Wikipedia rule (somebody can perhaps remind me of what it is called) that nobody is obliged to contribute to Wikipedia. Finally, on a personal note, I rather relish the prospect of being able to bore my family and friends for years with the tale that when Stenson won what he calls his 'double-double' (FedEx Cup, Race to Dubai, and both Tour Championship events, a kind of 'mini-grand-slam' that European golf fans may well remember for generations) Wikipedia wouldn't even mention the main double (FedEx Cup, Race to Dubai) in its In The News section - obviously the more I argue for this the more likely that Wikipedia will deprive me of that pleasure by putting it into In The News :) . That said, as already mentioned I don't wish to get involved any further in this discussion, so please feel free to reply to this if you wish; I hope to be able to avoid making any further reply myself, provided any such reply by others is not too provocative (and possibly even if it is). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't wish to comment because you are the nominator, that is your privilege, but you made no such initial statement, and you stated that you "don't care" if it gets posted; if you don't care about your own nomination, why should I- and why did you nominate it? Even if you don't wish to formally vote for your nomination(a valid concern), you could still certainly answer questions about it to help others form their opinion, or at least not state that you don't care. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't really be replying, as I just wrote that I would try to resist the temptation to do so. But unfortunately you've asked a couple of reasonable questions, which I unthinkingly answered before realizing that I had said I wasn't going to answer - so having already wasted the effort I might as well provide you with the requested answers. In answer to your question about why I nominated, I nominated it because I thought it deserved to be considered, and probably deserved to go in. I still think that. Incidentally, I didn't say I didn't care, I said I didn't much care. I still don't much care (or at least so I hope). I slightly care in the sense that all else being equal I think it should go in. And indeed I cared enough to point out to others that as I wasn't going to put up a fight, anybody who wanted it to go in would have to put up a fight themselves. But if it doesn't go in, I should keep a sense of perspective, realize that nothing very dreadful is going to happen as a result, and my attitude should then be 'so be it' (or so I hope - I am making a conscious effort not to get emotionally involved (which is what 'caring much' basically means), as I find such emotional involvement very unwise but an ever-present risk). As for your question as to why should you care, I don't think you should care, or at least not much, as I think Wikipedia would be a better less argumentative less angry place if everybody cared rather less, though I realize that's both debatable and also a lot easier said than done, human nature being what it is. There is also a problem with not caring much in the sense that those who care too much usually win the arguments at the expense of those care a lot less. But just because lunatics and bullies tend to win doesn't justify being a lunatic or a bully. So quite likely much the same is true of caring too much. But I could of course be completely wrong.Tlhslobus (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, violates WP:SYNTHESIS. If there is a Wikipedia page on this "feat" then it will be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, invalid oppose, many reliable sources are noting this as a "double". The fact a page doesn't exist is irrelevant, and the crystal-balling on its deletion is simply down to the fact that this has only occurred once. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is synthesis to claim that these two events means the combo is ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rambling Man on this. [[WP:SYNTHESIS] says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This does not apply here. The conclusion C is not the result of combining sources, but of saying what was said by the European Tour's website, a reliable source for golf (quote: "(Stenson) becomes the first player to win the FedEx Cup Series on the US PGA Tour and The Race to Dubai and in the same season."). As such objections based on WP:SYNTHESIS appear to be invalid, and I suspect that is something that more neutral observers than me will probably agree. (The second source, Gulf News, was simply given in case some people are a bit confused because of what McIlroy and Donald did in 2012 and 2011). But even if the 'synthesis' objection seems incorrect, this does not necessarily mean that other objections are incorrect, a matter that I prefer to leave mainly to others, for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this discusion.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, if 331dot and TRM want to dance toe-to-toe, let them do it elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly is this significant(that someone won two unrelated golf tournaments)? 331dot (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question you should be asking me in this thread. You should ask the BBC, Fox News, The Daily Telegraph etc etc etc, all of whom have headlined with this man who has won two unrelated golf tournaments. Honestly, you'd think I'd made this up. If you dislike using reliable sources, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim you or anyone made anything up; I simply asked why this is significant. It's not up to me to seek out information to support someone else's nomination, it's up to them and its supporters to convince me. I've been here long enough to know that an event's mere presence in the news has never been enough by itself to warrant posting an item. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You asked a question, I gave you an answer, now get over it and move on to something else. Read the sources to discover why it's significant, we're not here to nurse-maid you through this. It's clear this won't succeed, but several people commenting here have really exposed themselves as sadly ignorant to what is actually in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did not give an answer, you gave your reason for not giving an answer. I guess you don't care to see this posted if you are unwilling to answer a simple question about the nomination. I don't seek to be "nurse-maided", I seek supporters to advocate for their nomination and respond to reasonable questions to do so. As I said, merely being in the news has never been enough on its own as a reason to post something. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move along. I've already provided evidence as to the fact that (a) this is in the news and (b) the double is notable (because it's in the news). [and quite honestly, if you hadn't cottoned on to the fact that this was the first time ever this golfing double was achieved, per all the sources I've provided, I despair for you]. If you don't like it, do something else, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could say the same for you. Instead of arguing you could just answer my question; I would happily do the same for you in your place. Why is this "first time ever" notable? That's all I want to know. Are they notable tournaments? Have notable players? Occur in certain countries? That's all I want to know. Once more since you apparently aren't reading it, merely being in the news has never been enough of a reason to post something. If it is now, I have many stories I'd like to go back and see posted. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do your own research. It's a first. Top golfing tournaments. Notable, they both have articles, you can read them for yourself. Notable, massive news outlets have conflated the two victories as a "double". It's really not up to me to make excuses for the world's news outlets. You need to learn to do something for yourself, not rely on others. Use the internet, read newspapers, get a grip. This conversation is over. And thanks for the insight into your approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to research nominations that you support. You want it posted, you convince others to support it. I don't seek excuses, I seek answers. That's my "approach". And your opinion of it is quite irrelevant to me. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where I said I wanted it posted. Please show me where I support the nomination. Please show me where I want it posted. I have simply responded to another lazy "synth" argument, sick and tired of similar lazy respondents. Remove your false assertions. Your opinions are all very fascinating but if you don't do the work, do the research, there's no hope in discussing things with you. No point in arguing with deliberate self-declared ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought since that you attempted to discredit an argument against this that you supported it. Excuse me for thinking so. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I discredited wholeheartedly the lazy "synth" arguments which all the major news outlets have done on my behalf. I have no dog in the fight other than the righteous cause. (which was another good cause to close the debate down, but hey, you insisted on continuing the bitching....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's synthesis...and not even that significant. The first FedEx Cup was in 2007 and the first Race to Dubai was 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.124.5 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great irrelevant stats! And synth would be an easy call if it weren't for the fact that many major news outlets are talking about this particular unique/historic double. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not irrelevant that these are two relatively new tournaments; hardly long enough to distinguish them on an individual basis, let alone as some sort of significant achievement as a pair. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how many times? Reliable sources etc are publishing this as a unique/notable double. Not up to us. Really now time for you to stop trying to make a point.The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm doing; the only thing I am doing is asking why, but you refuse to answer. And I was addressing the anon user more than you. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The events are too new for the significance of this to be clear. If next time happens is in 50 years time, and these events are still "important", we'll post it then. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This just seems like sports writers creating some sort of significant achievement out of nothing; these are new tournaments and have not existed long enough to develop a prestigious history on their own or as a pair, or otherwise explain why they are significant. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This just seems like sports writers creating some sort of significant achievement" now that really is synthesis. Well played! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You are browbeating people over having an opnion different from your own. Please stop. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per HiLo. We have bigger fish to fry. Jusdafax 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate the explanation posted above from the nominator and thank them for it and being willing to help(unlike another person). So if I understand this right, he was tops in points in two separate tours and won their finales? I am not terribly knowledgeable in pro golf, but is that something that is difficult to do, or just lucky that it happened to this person? I'm trying to think of analogies to this situation from other sports but coming up empty; but in any event while I kinda see why this is being reported I'm still not seeing how this is significant to the golf world itself. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about golf apart from what I read here and in the news occasionally, something you could do too if you're prepared to comment on these sort of nominations (although I do enjoy the Ryder Cup, for obvious reasons lately!) The fundamental point is that this is in the news and it is being reported globally as a success because of the twin wins. As to why that's the case, that's not really for you or me to justify or explain, it's for us to assess it against the criteria. I would hate to see original research being used by editors to declare that this "seems" to be a device of sports writers. Because that's even lazier than claiming SYNTH. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, but I read the news plenty. I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you- and I made the sports writers comment before the nominator posted a much more helpful response to me than you have given to me. That said, I'll stop beating my head into the wall now. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. Obviously if you had read the news then you'd have seen the headlines relating the significance of the twin win. But as I said, I'm no expert, so thanks for continually reminding me that I didn't give you a "helpful response". If you don't what you're commenting on, don't comment on it. I was commenting on the bullshit synth "arguments", nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this rather simple? If the two awards are notable enough on their own, then each could be posted, and combining is a matter of economy. But if the individual news items were not notable, no matter how rare the combination: Will Smith becomes first man to wed Jada Pinkett, buys a DeLorean, then posting them together as if alough neither X nor Z X is notable on its own, but X and Z together are, it is synthesis. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant aeroplane crash, the worst of the year so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article is expanded a bit (I may join). High death toll plus it's Boeing-737. Brandmeistertalk 17:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to high death toll. Egeymi (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
came here to nominate it too. It fits the precedence arguement. Just needs a bit more of an updae.Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High death toll and reported on globally. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a widely reported air crash, clearly in the news. Article needs a bit more detail before posting though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - i hope nobody minded I updated the blurb. Simply south......cooking letters for just 7 years 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 50 fatalities, hull loss and widespread coverage. Probably the worst air crash this year. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: High death toll (even for the region) and has been termed the "biggest show of public anger over militias in months." There is a lot of instability there now (Egypt, Tunisia (slightly less) and of course Syria, then we have a notable individual incident like this) in Libya), so I think its worth having this on ITN. The general instability in the region is notable to be in the news (and indeed IS in the news) (Wonder what the US embassy cables are saying?) --Lihaas (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, significant violence that is getting international coverage. Perhaps we could mention the declaration of a state of emergency in Tripoli too? Neljack (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before it gets stale...(and theres been no opposed yet..)Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Clashes like this are not uncommon in Libya. Also the article has a significant amount of problems. The orange tags should be dealt with.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But 45 deaths IS unusual. Its not everyday this happens even though iolence happens. That was the pt. In Iraq bombings with many civilian deaths are till tragically commong (maybe you are conflating the two on some level), but in Libya civilin deaths at one go is still not as common as Iraq/SyriaLihaas (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support Nobel Prize for Literature demonstrates importance in her field. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Judging by her BBC tribute she is sufficiently notable in her field to warrant a place on RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly (if not she, whom?). B-class article, in good shape. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hard to be more RD-worthy than winning a Nobel. Not sure how much updating needs to be done, since her death itself is a simple enough matter; guess that just leaves some touch-ups on the legacy stuff. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nobel laureate of literature. Essentially, a no-brainer. Not sure if much can be written about her death, since it was apparently natural and due to old age. --hydrox (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions/legacy. Thats whats generally considered an update.Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a requirement. The article notes her passing and is reasonable besides that, exactly what hydrox is saying above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant author, update adequate, article sufficient, go to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very well-known author, certainly notable. Egeymi (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, th article is NOT updated. All it says is "Lessing died on 17 November 2013 at her home in London"Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, that was a highly suggestive statement. She changed the ITN-template. People do that more often (adding [ready], specifying details etc). Refactoring a comment is generally used to indicate someone changed the text in a discussion, which she didn't do…. Please be a bit less trigger happy in suggesting things about blocks, as it doesn't help in keeping a cooperative atmosphere; there are better ways to indicate that something doesn't go the way you like it…. L.tak (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It happened when i first joined. Nevertheless she did change his comment without atribution of hers. and making it look like she said it.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Look like she said it"? No way. I don't like being misrepresented. On the bright side, Lihaas turned around and made contributions to the article and it is posted. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might also try not miscegenating "she" and "whom", Susan. It's either "she" and "who", or "her" and "whom". μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a notable author. As has been said many, many times, for Recent Deaths the basic change of tense and date of death is pretty much adequate for an update. It's all the details that a standard obituary includes and RD is an obituary section. Everybody dies, and let's not unbalance articles on remarkable people by over-focussing on one of the least remarkable things they do. --LukeSurltc 19:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The ITN guidelines say an update noting the mere fact reported in the blurb (in this case a death) is never a sufficient one. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unanimous support, article has minimum required update and is in good shape. Ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Obviously - one of the most important writers of our time. Good to see this posted so quickly, with the article looking good. Neljack (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a list of novels, not novelists, and a rather idiosyncratic one at that. I'm not sure why we're supposed to take it as gospel. Neljack (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one said gospel; it's just a very notable list by critics and readers. I was required to read Lessing for my undergrad honors English class in the 80's. (You'll note I didn't vote against her here.) Something about a post-apocalyptic world full of windy, doorless buildings. It might have made a good short story; as a novel it was a waste. μηδείς (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is of no use at all for this question. Just from looking at the top 20: they are all dead, most of them for decades. --RJFF (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since when did that particular "list of top x" become the de facto standard for what's worth including in Wikipedia? If you go by the readers, there's no other author than Ayn Rand. A little like suggesting Coldplay should be top of the best music charts ever. Or Hirst should be top of artists. Utterly pointless POV and nothing to do with the nomination. Please waste time elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And have you appraised yourself of the recent ITN/RD guidelinesMedeis? Please, it's important so you stop making so many mistakes in the ITN/C noms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having some very hard time taking seriously any list of "best novels" of the 20th century that has four Ayn Rands and three L. Ron Hubbards in top-ten, or even any publisher that cares to publish such rubbish. Meanwhile, the Nobel prize of literature is a very well-acknowledged achievement in the field of writers. --hydrox (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you neglect to mention the critics' list on the same page intentionally, or by error? The fact she appears on neither list of 100 at any spot is telling. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, the famous Grossman and Lacayo. I have them on my bedstand. (Apologize for the sarcasm--the Modern Library list is slightly more broad and notable.) μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment This nomination seems premature. Judging by the recent polls listed in the article, it appears likely that the election will go to a runoff (to be held on 15 December). Neljack (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need some evidence this is in the news; should the blurb mention that she was President once before? 331dot (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An event needs to be in the news in order to be posted in the In The News box; ITNR does not get around that fundamental requirement. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting a blurb, but if there is a runoff this should not be posted until then. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bachelet elected? It's most likely there will be a runoff in December between her and Matthei or Parisi, but she won't be elected now. Küñall (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the run-off, per all precedent and WP:ITNR. An inconclusive first round does not qualify under ITNR (so I've corrected the template). Modest Geniustalk 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait As I predicted, this was premature - the election is going to a second round. Neljack (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
On ITNR, so this should go up once the article is ready. However, the paragraph which describes him winning this year's championship is entirely unreferenced, and could do with being expanded. It should be mentioned in the lead as well. Modest Geniustalk 20:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In principle we could bold the other article, but that's just as bad - most of the races have no references. Modest Geniustalk 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A San Diego, California family of four, who disappeared in 2010, is found buried in the desert; local authorities are now treating the case as multiple homicides. (CBS News)
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.
Nominator's comments: Added controversy to the blurb as the re-run and international pressure were there. Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needs updating with the run-off details. I don't like just adding "amidst controversy"; perhaps a mention that a previous election result was annulled? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that should worl. "amidst an anulled election" or something?Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...after an earlier election is annulled" perhaps?Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okey: "...after the first round was annulled and re-done"?Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed with Espresso on amidst controversy. Do we really need it? If yes, then linking it to some section of the article would help. Else. please remove it. Regards, theTigerKing 08:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Need some evidence this is in the news. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before (by others) its ITNRLihaas (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs sources. To show it has actually happened, if nothing else. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, I don't think you understand what ITNR is for; it establishes notability for recurring events, it does not establish that a recurring event is indeed in the news. If a recurring event is not in the news, it should not be posted, ITNR or not. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Au contrairem, (an dothers have said so too before me), the fact that its on ITNR means ready to post subject oinly to an update. (which when sourced will shot it is in the news...hence read the article will get that)Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Au contraire"; that is just not correct. ITNR only addresses notability of a recurring event. It does not address the fundamental fact that this section is called "In the News" and not "Things Lihaas finds interesting". Something must be demonstrated to be in the news in order to be posted, otherwise, calling this "In the News" has no meaning. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein, this is not "things 331dot likes". Others have said this before and I am reiterating what they have saaid. YOU may have a different perception of ITNR but until you get consenssu that doesnt hold.
Further, as ive said the source covering an update indiacted it is in the news. That is the same source that is posted here. So perhaps instead of bickering see the updates or/and get consensus for that view that you alone holds.Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Things on the "in the news" page need to be demonstrated to be in the news. That isn't my opinion or a judgement call; that's a fundamental aspect of this page. ITNR does not override or cancel that. The instructions on this page require that a verifiable news source be included in the nomination. If you want that requirement removed, then propose it. Otherwise, it is not hard to post a source in the nomination. It isn't up to me to look for sources to support your nomination.331dot (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked a couple of UK items; the BBC article links several others which have covered the long-winded electoral process. Reading the Guardian analysis this seems a significant change. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR, but please drop 'amidst controversy' from the blurb, which adds no information and is discouraged by WP:LABEL. Article is short but looks good enough to post. Modest Geniustalk 22:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to post when I see some more support. --Tone 11:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen ITNRs being posted even with one or two votes. Why not this one? Why waiting? [Got curious to know the reason] Regards, theTigerKing 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR items only require discussion regarding the update and article quality; support is presumed for ITNR items and is not needed when they appear on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UI agree,but did you just contradict yourself on ITNR? (youre not saying im that convincing, alternatively?) ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the article could do with covering the complex history of this election process in more detail, as well as the reaction to the rather unexpected outcome, both within and outside the country. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per ITN/R --LukeSurltc 12:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. I'll skip the controversy, as said above, it is discussed in the article. --Tone 18:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BUt that's the notably bit...or rather the ESPECIALLY notable nitLihaas (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW- you dint update the timer?Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the timer, though it certainly wasn't worth getting your panties in a bind over. Oh, and the word is spelled "didn't" with a "d" and an apostrophe between the "n" and "t". --Jayron32 03:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Panties in a bid? I was simply informing, where was aI angry???Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations tallies the death toll to around 4,400. The Red Cross estimates that around 20,000 are still missing, many of whom are feared dead. This is contrary to a previous estimate by Benigno Aquino III, who put the death toll to a low 2,000. (NBC News)
Police in Ethiopia arrest dozens of people outside the Saudi Arabian embassy in the capital Addis Ababa who were protesting against attacks on Ethiopians in Saudi Arabia. (Al Jazeera)
The BrazilianSupreme Federal Court issues a long-time awaited order to arrest for bribery 12 former top officials who had served under ex-president Lula, in one of the nation's biggest corruption cases. (Bloomberg)
Support, though I wonder if we could incorporate the announcement of the end of re-education through labour camps, which I think is equally significant. They were announced together and are being widely reported together. Neljack (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the one-child article is better updated, and support Neljack's suggestion re labor camps with the same condition of update. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially with incorporation of RTL camps. — C M B J 19:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support an item based on this document when the relevant articles are updated; in addition to the labour camps, there appear to be a number of other important reforms announced, including changes to capital punishment. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose til its more inth e news...dont see thatLihaas (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and comment China has been relaxing its one child policy bit by bit for years. Isolating a single, obviously politically motivated announcement from many in a 22,000 word document seems shallow. And I am concerned at the motivation of those who want to mention one of the other three changes mentioned in the article, but not the others. Any hint that editors here are trying to score political points themselves must be avoided. It's all four, or none, surely. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in part per HiLo48. The very article linked in the nom says "most of the changes have already been tested in parts of the country" so this isn't really some watershed moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per TRM- this has been building up for some time. These sorts of meetings where these policies arise from are mere formalities. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a little confused. The issue is in the news now, mentioned at news aggregators like Drudge and RealClearPolitics (over half a dozen mentions at their World section). Saying this is not a watershed moment ignores the fact that we do publish all sorts of incremental developments in things such as crimes, or Voyager leaving the Solar System--twice. Unless this has already been posted, it's fully eligible now. As for HiLO's objection, all we need do is say China announces a series of reforms, including on Banking, Labour Camps, Yatta, Yatta, Yatta, and the One-Child Policy. I don't think any would oppose a well-worded blurb on those lines. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this has been happening for months. It's not new[s], nor (surprisingly) per Lihaas, is it "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some Chinese people I know have told me about aspects of this as it has happened over the last several years, and I have seen reference to parts of it in the news over that time too. It's a trickle effect (the one child changes) and no surprise, nor is it new news now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitely big news. Agree with Neljack and μηδείς that the abolition of labor camps should also be mentioned. -Zanhe (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm bemused by the opposition to this. As Medeis points out, suggestions that this isn't in the news are wrong - I found no fewer than eight articles on the announcement on the BBC World Website. Reforms are often trialled in particular areas before being introduced nationally - that doesn't mean that aren't significant. The media and experts on Chinese politics are treating this as an important announcement, and I doubt editors here have a better gauge of its significance that they do. Finally, I agree with Medeis's suggestion regarding the blurb, which addresses HiLo's concern. Neljack (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slavery had been outlawed in many states prior to 1865, but we still posted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.97.81.161.12 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article has been substantially updated (as of now the update is only one line). Perfect candidate for ITN, will affect a large portion of world population directly, has got widespread media attention and definitely qualifies all wiki notability criteria.LegalEagle (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notable - Yes. But can we trust the governments? In a democracy - NO, in China- Don't know! Lets wait for the plan to be made available like China takes back it policy formally, I would say.Regards, theTigerKing 14:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the major news agencies that reported the development, not a single one has questioned China's will to implement the policy changes. If they didn't plan to implement the policies, why would they make such high-profile announcements? They could have simply kept silent and maintained the status quo, as they had done for 30 years. -Zanhe (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't think it would be desirable to start judging nominations relating to governments based on our trust of them. It would just inevitably lead to political arguments. Our political POV should not be relevant here. Neljack (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, they are just plans and announcements. Just mention a baby step taken by the Government of China, which would mean actions or steps taken in layman terminology. Nevertheless, it was not my POV. Just a generic behaviour of Governments around the world. I read somewhere just following the announcements made by China may even take even a decade to implement. I believe the nomination is too early. I wouldn't mind turning my vote to Support. Till then, I would treat it as a rumor. Thoroughly agree with Lihaas. Regards, theTigerKing 08:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support China's one child policy has been the center of controversy for years, and with the relaxing of the law, it definitely has some significance. Baseball Watcher 09:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "announced plans to relax", it has't actually done it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready the article is updated and the consensus is for support. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, the supports appear to think this is actually happening while the opposes have acknowledged that this is simply an "indication" that something "might" happen. It's not actually going ahead yet. Not news, not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opposition is not a reason to remove a ready tag. Support is 9-5 in favor, the article is updated, and there are no other technical objections. At this point one accepts consensus and awaits an admin either posting or giving a good reason not to post yet. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps when you learn to count, we'll take your comments more seriously. Moreover, consensus isn't gauged on pure vote numbers, it's argument-based, and most of the arguments positive seem to assume the law has changed rather than the Chinese stating they may now look into changing it. Get your facts and numbers straight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. You say counting doesn't matter, but you say my count (8 supports plus Nominator vs 5 opposes) is wrong. What is your count? Please give a technical reason why this nomination is not ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still can't count. And once again, the "technical reason" is that the support votes don't present a suitable argument. I'm deeply shocked that someone with your "experience" here thinks that posting ITN items is simply a numerical exercise. How revealing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Significant news story with worldwide coverage. I have added a sentence to the ending of the lead to reflect the section that updates the article. Jusdafax 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, significant news would be that the Chinese government does relax the law, along with the other things discussed in this nomination, not that it announces plans to do so.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. In China, a government announcement is tantamount to changing the law. If any law needs to be changed, it would be merely a formality. The announcement itself is the big news and reported worldwide. No news agency will report the event if/when the National People's Congress rubberstamps the change in the legal code. -Zanhe (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article " They distributed a second report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.[7]". Ho hum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This info is from 2009 and clearly outdated. I've deleted the sentence from the article. -Zanhe (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still Ready the article is updated, and consensus is 9-5 in support, with only edit warring by one editor to obscure the fact. If an admin finds it's not ready, please post the reason why so it can be addressed. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My gut reaction was support, but oppose per the sentence by The Rambling Man above "They distributed a second report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.[7]" It appears that China has been planning to relax the policy since at least 2009, so no, this is not news. Once the actual policy is actually relaxed, we can post it. RyanVesey 04:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't read my rebuttal of Rambling above. China does not work like democratic Western countries: when the government makes a policy announcement, it is as good as the passage of a law in democratic countries. When do you ever see the rubberstamp National People's Congress make the news? There will no more news to post if we don't post it this time. -Zanhe (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready please comment: we still have a 9 to 6 consensus for support, the article is updated and in good shape. Can an admin either post this or address what technical matter needs fixing for it to be postable? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready, most of the supports ask for the inclusion of the removal of labour camps. That's not in the suggested blurb at all. But worse than that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing has actually happened yet. This just a plan.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is still updated, still not tagged, and still in consensus to post. I cal on an admin either to post at this point or say what further work is needed. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what "still in consensus to post" means. I hope you're not counting votes. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This summit begins amid boycott call from human rights groups over allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but change blurb Several countries have confirmed their boycott - namely, Canada, India and Mauritius (BBC source). I've added an alt-blurb that explains that something has actually happened beyond just "calls" for boycotts. Smurrayinchester 12:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. The meeting itself probably isn't notable enough to be posted every time, but the controversy over Sri Lanka and the resulting boycotts are major news here. Modest Geniustalk 13:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, by 'here' I meant 'in this case', not 'where I am'. Modest Geniustalk 22:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ypnypn (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb or something like it. The boycott is the big news here. Neljack (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with first alt blurb, when article fully updated (lead still in future tense). I think we should mention which nations are boycotting. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. As above, the boycott is the real news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. It's only occasionally that these talk-fests discuss anything of substance. I think they tackled the issue of Fiji's naughty military government a while ago, and suspended it from the Commonwealth, or something. But nothing like that is on the agenda this time. Maybe if it was being held anywhere but Sri Lanka, that country's behaviour may well be on the agenda, but it isn't and it isn't. So, no major items on the agenda. The boycott IS the news. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On reading beyond the lead I'm not sure the article is ready yet. I've toned down some of the language in the article and asked for some citations. More and more-reliable citations generally are probably still required. The posting admin should also note that none of the three countries have completely boycotted the meeting, they have merely not sent their prime ministers, so some wording to that effect needs to be retained in the alt blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated blurb poer this. The section on the summit is sourced. The end if tomorrow, so we could wait for that to post the final communique. Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the article is read to be posted. Regards, theTigerKing 14:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked eready, final communique issued (and why is that a redlink?
Final communique was issued today 17 November, so this can go on the top of ITN.)Lihaas (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we mention the significant parts of the final communique in the blurb? That's a rhetorical question. If we did, it would highlight how non-newsworthy this event was, APART FROM THE BOYCOTT. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian police reveal that 348 people have been arrested internationally and 386 children rescued as a result of a three-year child pornography investigation called "Project Spade". (RT)(BBC)
Politics and elections
Following the heightened scrutiny from the April 2012 controversy, two U.S. Secret Service agents are relieved of duty from Barack Obama's security detail after charges of sexual harassment towards a female subordinate. (TIME)
Nominator's comments: Retirement of "the God of cricket" is a huge event in India and covered globally by all cricket fans. The planned event is followed by series of celebrations and felicitations going on since few days now. The subject Test match is scheduled from 14th to 18th November. --§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative blurb 2: Sachin Tendulkar(pictured) retires from all forms of cricket with his 200th Test match, and is announced to win Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award. (Skipping Rao's award as its only in news because of Sachin. Also, its only announced and not awarded. Also, its not "co-awarded". Both will receive their one full medal and prize money and won't split it.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, he is already awarded. He would be getting the artifacts in a ceremony. Click on President's Secretariat -> Press Communique. More of a technical language 'pleased to award' and 'decided to confer'. Confusing statements. :) Regards, theTigerKing 14:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this already nominated a month ago and rejected? μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find where such discussion happened. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will Oppose this primarily because I oppose all retirement nominations as such, and secondarily as stale. But there's nothing wrong with you renominating it if it is in the news. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not stale. The first day of his final match is currently underway. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, if you need some help with linking to specific page instances, just let us know, your link above is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely someone who has performed at the highest level. The very highest level. For 24 years! (Tomorrow.) The greatest Indian player, and best of all for the time he was playing. If we ever post a sports retirement, this has to be the one. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wide international coverage, almost every country - Ninney (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per previous nomination; sports retirements shouldn't be posted, and athletes do un-retire too (e.g., Michael Jordan, also in the top of his field); do we post the second time they retire too in that case? SpencerT♦C 07:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Let's clarify this once and for all. Do we post sports retirements, ever? (If we do, this is a shoe-in.) I have initiated a policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be undone is no reason to not post. That's a bad speculation just for the sake of speculating. Why do we post world records then when they can and most probably are broken? I also don't see why "retirement" is something that you oppose. The topic here is "Sachin's retirement", not sportsman's retirement. His retirement is making big in news, has series of other events clubbed to it, is vocalizing numerous luminaries. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just been reminded in the thread at Wikipedia talk:In the news that we posted Alex Ferguson's retirement. This is obviously bigger. That overrules any claim that we shouldn't post sporting retirements. Precedent is set. So Spencer's oppose is completely negated. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose struck; I will discuss retirement-related noms at WT:ITN rather than clogging up this nomination. SpencerT♦C 07:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if Geoffrey Boycott says "he's always been rubbish" (sic), he's a legend. End of. And the Test series article is coming along great too. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. Hard to imagine a bigger figure in sport and his retirement is big news for a considerable fraction of the Earth's population. Would suggest that it come at the end of the match, though. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as Tendulkar is one of the most famous sportsmen worldwide. But we should wait until this Test actually ends before posting. --LukeSurltc 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Although he is known as God of Cricket in India, he is not notable worldwide. Athletes do un-retire too. It has not been given enough coverage in the international media. Faizan 12:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please name a sports person who is MORE notable worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usain Bolt. That being said, I support this nomination. Resolute 20:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to imagine a current sportsperson more notable worldwide.GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was Matthew Hayden, Australian cricketer who said "I have seen God, he bats at no. 4 for India". Sachin isn't God of cricket only in India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And hey, Indian media is saying that Pakistani media said that "Game of cricket will be poorer without Sachin Tendulkar". Don't you read "Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper" Dawn back home? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Faizan, please name a sports person who is MORE notable worldwide. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a significant development outside of cricket. Retirements should not be posted, unless its an abdicating monarch or resigning politician. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the majority of news it's not significant outside of the field they relate to? The MotoGP world championship is not significant outside of motor sports, the ECB interest rate is not significant outside of finance and economics, the Bangladesh Rifles Revolt is not significant outside of Bangladesh... but they're all in the news today. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't say that if you had read the article before writing. See how the "society outside of cricket" of non-professional cricketers is reacting. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be a "significant development outside of cricket", as long as it is in the news- but that doesn't seem to be true anyway. This is in the New York Times, and cricket is not very popular in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the greatest cricketers of all time. Plus it is hard to think of any sports star whose fame and adulation in their home country matches that of Tendulkar in India. This is absolutely huge news in India, which (let us remember) is a country of more than a billion people. It is also big news throughout the cricketing world. Neljack (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as I did when it was nominated before here. As I pointed out there, we posted Yao Ming retiring as well as Ferguson; maybe a couple others from reading this man's prior discussion. If this is the tip-top greatest player of cricket ever (which is what people seem to be saying) then I could understand posting it. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second greatest probably. Don Bradman is almost unanimously considered the greatest cricketer of all time. --LukeSurltc 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, not only is Tendulkar much more than a household name in India (referred to as the "god of cricket"), he's well known as one of (if not the) greatest cricketers ever. Not only is this being reported in English-speaking cricket nations (England, Australia, Pakistan, South Africa, Kenya, New Zealand, etc etc), but it's being reported in non-English-speaking non-cricket-playing nations (e.g. Spain)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that there's no Spanish Wikipedia article for the greatest cricketer ever... –HTD 14:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking deeper, Tendulkar is probably third if you count 19th-century master W. G. Grace. But most would probably agree he's the greatest living cricketer. --LukeSurltc 13:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: I don't think that's true. I'd say that most people who know their cricket would agree that Garry Sobers is the greatest living cricketer. A surprising number of distinguished former players and other good judges consider him the greatest player ever, even ahead of Bradman, and he usually ranks second when these lists are being made. Neljack (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just google "greatest cricketer poll", and see how often Tendulkar comes up top. It's really neither here nor there, mind you, it's clear this is "in the news" and is of interest to millions of readers. Tendulkar's article has received over half a millions page views this month alone.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spain? Must be some very confudsed people there./..
Sobers is definately good (6 6s), but he doesnt have as much to back hima s Bradman adn Sachin. Those 2 stand aprt by far.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is objective, im using that as a reason to show he is top of game other than Bradman which makes him number 1. Sobers being the best is subjective. Hes good yes, but not technically THE best.Lihaas (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Timing comment, Test matches can go on for up to five days, so Tendulkar isn't going to retire today. --LukeSurltc 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agreed to wait/ post it day after tomorrow when the match will end (a this rate)...or at most day 4.Lihaas (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have been posted the last time it was nominated... it was bigger news then, but since we have delayed it then might as well wait a couple more days for him to actually retire -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hook doesn’t say "today" or "3 hours ago". If nothing at all happened in the world for next whole week, the blurb would remain just there. With a slow week it could linger longer. (I remember seeing Thatcher like for ever. Maybe i accidently visited the main page quite often in those days.) I hate it when Wikipedia posts news after all actual newspapers have long behind left it and moved ahead. With a five day slot that we have, we actually have a good chance to catch up with the real world by not delaying till the end of match. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Statistically speaking he is the greatest cricketer of all time. Definitely ITN worth! —Vensatry(Ping me) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but shouldn't Tendulkar be the bolded part, not his 200th test (which doesn't actually link to an article about the match any way)? That's what people are more likely to care about, that's the big new story, and his article is of better quality. Smurrayinchester 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that. Let me know if Tendulkar is to be bolded and that article will then have to be updated a bit more. And the article does link to the actual match. Its in the sections under West_Indian_cricket_team_in_India_in_2013–14#Test_series. Should that section be linked rather than the article? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it DOES link to the last match/series he is playing in. And there is prose about it too.Lihaas (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Tendulkar's article should be updated and boded, given that this is specifically about him, though I suppose if both articles are updated we can have them both bolded. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about being abou thim, the update needs to be there. That is a good few sentences about it (the retirement specifically)...which by the size of the page is not worth putting there.Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support forgot to add this. Of course, this is exactly what ITN should be about. A popular story, thousands of page views, meets the criteria, away we go! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. This is one of the very few retirements worth posting. The baseball equivalent of the retirement of Joe DiMaggio.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It doesn't matter to me whether it's a birth of a baby, death of a (oded?) TV actor or a retirement of big sports star, it should be "in the news". It's very surprising that there's no Spanish Wikipedia article for Sachin. Anyway, they don't even have article for the Don, so there is not much to surprise about! I should spend more time there. — Bill william comptonTalk 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but agree that his bio should be the bolded article. Bolding the article for the tour is just confusing. Formerip (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I did last time. I don't see any reason in principle why sporting retirements should not be posted, though I think we should aim to set the bar very high (no more than one or two a year on average). Agree the bolded article should be Tendulkar's biography. Normally I'd say wait till the end of the match, but progression is glacially slow here at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and agree that his bio should be the bolded article. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support greatest cricket batsman of his generation. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment WHY should his article be bolded? Not for the sake of it. Its not about the article being about him or confusing, the update needs to be there. That is, a good few sentences is needed about it (the retirement specifically)...which by the size of the page is not worth putting there. The series page has plenty of an update about himLihaas (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This definitely needs to be added to the main page for all the reasons given above. Btw, how many supports do we need more? Are we going to post this once the test match is over? One day is already down and he has also made a half-century in the meantime. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously going to be posted, but I presume we are waiting for the end of the match, or test, or whatever it's called. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That way when its no longer "news". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support He is the most notable athlete of Indian Subcontinent. This whole series was planned just to make sure that Sachin plays his last match in India. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 07:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already posted the hundred centuries record, there's no need to post him again so soon. He's a significant cricketer, but that doesn't justify an ITN blurb IMO. Besides, there's an absolute requirement for a suitable article update, which will be very difficult to do beyond a simple statement that he has retired. Modest Geniustalk 13:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article update is "suitable" is relative; some articles need more of an update than others. There is no hard and fast rule that lengthy updates are required. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoth Wikipedia:In_the_news#Updated_content: "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient". I cannot see how this could meet the minimum update criteria. Modest Geniustalk 13:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the series has 2 paragraphs about it (and one about the latest match). That DOES meet the update.Lihaas (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More updates in the bolded article? There is so much in it already. Are people reading or not? This is 3rd guy. If anything more goes in it, it will be ball-to-ball commentary trivia. And whats the logic with we-posted-him-just-now? If there was earthquake in a country, won't we post any unrelated happenings again for few months? And last ITN was on 16 March 2012, 517 days ago.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The news story is Tendulkar's retirement, not the current match. Ergo, the bolded article should be Tendulkars, which is the one that needs a proper update, not the match. Modest Geniustalk 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest what more would you like to see. I think the current info in the biography is enough. All forms of celebrations, like balloons and masks and gold coins are trivial in such a vast biography. Look at the size of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For those obsessed with numerical updates, the article has three sentences and five references regarding the retirement specifically, and a bit at the end of the lead as well. The update is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SupportNotable event in the lifetime of a notable person in the world of sport He is Time's magazine Person of the Moment. Gifted a Ferrari by Micheal Schumacher and Federer meeting his idol at the Wimbledon. Definitely known outside the world of cricket. An end of a Moment. The event is covered worldwide and is notable enough. Recipient of India's second highest civilian award (his name is already doing the rounds for the highest civilian award) for the profession he is synonymous to demigod. Type in the google Sachin Tendulkar and popular english daily in your region, you would find some pointers to his retirement.Barack Obama once commented India's factory output decline to him playing cricket. I see no reason why it can't be posted now. An exception can be made to the retirement criteria of ITNR PERIOD
Let's make that clearer. Tendulkar's final match has finished. He HAS now retired. There is nothing more to wait for. Post it.HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "cricketer" from the blurbs, since it is redundant when we say "retires from all forms of cricket." As noted above, the test has finished, so we are good to go. Neljack (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another developing update, alternate blurb updated Sachin Tendulkar is awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, by the President of India. Breaking Story[7] [He would recive it in person on Republic Day 2014] Regards, theTigerKing 10:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - retirement can be considered for ITN but Bharat ratna does not really qualify as ITN (do we post articles when countries bestow highest civilian honour on any person like say Legion of Honour or knighthood), would suggest suitable alt blurb. LegalEagle (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aren’t posting separate blurb for award. (heck! We aren't posting anything at all.) It can be made a subordinate clause here itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about Sachin Tendulkar(pictured) retires from cricket, and is co-awarded Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award. Prof Rao needs to be dropped (as I said earlier ITN is not for Bharat Ratna, which is incidental, but for the retirement). Hope this issue is sorted before final posting on main page.LegalEagle (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION required the match has concluded so the retirement should now be posted. Not sure the award is needed, that's not what's got the support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine without award. Who updates ITNs? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! We have some 9-10 admins already involved. Doubt if anyone is left out there who checks ITNs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO both the retirement and Bharat Ratna are notable. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣaglesorties 12:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the day he is conferred the Bharat Ratna (which is clearly the more important facet). --MASEM (t) 15:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't wait. Bad call. There is near unanimous support for his retirement. The award is interesting, but not what most of the support and discussion was about. If the award needs to be added later, do it then, otherwise this will become a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Award will be given on 26 January 2014. Its stupid to wait till then. Plus it wont be "news" then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted tired of waiting. Overwhelming support for the retirement to be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and pull. This is definitely not front page stuff. Majority of people have never even heard about this feller (like me). The nominator is suprisingly Indian, clearly looking for some attention for his country. Th4n3r (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where of course, you'll have heard of the head of state of Chile and The Maldives. Sorry, we cant account for your own ignorance. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 10:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objections relating to an item being from a single country are invalid("Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."); every story could be said to be posted by someone looking for "attention" for their country. Further, not having heard of something is not a reason to avoid posting a story; every event is "never heard of" by someone in the world(even US Presidential elections); in fact, not having heard of something is a reason to post an item, as you will then be enlightened. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, Th4n3r, there are over 1 billion Indians, many more than the population of the US or UK, I think they deserve to get a story now and then(even if only a small percentage of their population uses the Internet, still a lot in raw numbers). 331dot (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i fI post to get my country some attention, then which country am I from? ;)Lihaas (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may all take a look at this edit by Th4n3r to get some idea where the guy is coming from. (I tried to read it as irony, but with no success. Maybe he is an Indian trying to impersonate an arrogant xenophobic American in order to make Americans look bad, who knows?) --Hegvald (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off Topic DiscussionIf you have not heard the name before, type it in Google or read the Wikipedia item. Regards, theTigerKing 08:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly "off topic", as it is that users' rationale for opposing this item, but it is an invalid reason to do so. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
His oppose = his opinion (COI is not handled on ITN/C) - however personal attacks are not tolerated here. The comment "The nominator is suprisingly Indian, clearly looking for some attention for his country" comes dangerously close to voilating WP:NPA, if it doesn't already. The user should be asked to retract this if anything. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Never heard of him but you're welcome. -- 98.23.51.52
Well, if 98.23.51.52 has never heard of this person, that must mean it should be removed. If we removed every subject from ITN that someone hadn't heard of, ITN would be blank. Instead, you could read about this man and learn something (the purpose of ITN). 331dot (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we have all learnt something about 98.23.51.52. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WWF releases a photo, taken by a camera trap in a forest in central Vietnam in September, of one of Earth's rarest mammals, the saola, which hadn’t been seen in 15 years. (The Washington Post)
Nominator's comments: An unusual but major transportation accident that embodies a broader, ongoing issue. — C M B J 18:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more details that can be added to the article? I would like to support and think this is unusual enough and covered enough in the news to do so, but the article is slim at the moment. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Working on that at the moment. — C M B J 19:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I now support as the article has been much expanded. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in present format. The coverage needs to be expanded to put this into context and explain its importance. I'm not sure a separate article for the incident is merited; it might be better to merge it into something else, perhaps Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary, though that is very slender and poorly referenced, or the railway line if it has an article, or some more-general article about the effect of trains on elephants/wildlife. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awww, poor Elephants :( ...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the only objection to this nomination is that of curation style, let's defer that discussion to preferable venues and get this posted while it's still relevant. — C M B J 06:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by "curation style". I just don't, on consideration, think the incident merits a separate article, which is borne out by some of its expansion being non-encyclopedic detail. We certainly can't link to 2013 Chapramari Forest train accident while it is at AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view AfD as a dealbreaker (particularly because that would encourage weaponization) but we can just as well link to the natural reserve's article for temporary until AfD closes. There are no other expressed objections here, so again I'd like to move for posting in either original or alternate form. — C M B J 19:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CMBJ pinged me to reconsider this. I don't have as strong an objection to the Chapramari Wildlife Sanctuary section being linked; however, as I said at the outset, that article is very poorly referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — C M B J 10:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still more citations needed. Also the number of elephants killed needs to be clarified; the New York Times is stating 5.[8]Espresso Addict (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get another couple refs up if possible. The NYT tally is inaccurate, though -- the more direct sources don't report 5. — C M B J 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a unique event that will be long remembered. If 17 people had been killed this way we'd post it. The fact that it's at AfD is irrelevant, and the vote is going toward keep in any case. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - unusual event. Simply south......cooking letters for just 7 years 22:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've struck my above oppose per improvement to the wildlife sanctuary article's referencing. But... As the article states, this is (sadly) not an unusual event. Five elephants appear to have been killed in the latest tally [9], with a total of 17 this year in this area. Seven seem to have been killed in one incident in 2010.[10] I don't quite understand why this has caught the imagination of the western press, though I don't deny that it has. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Is this noteworthy? --Simply south......cooking letters for just 7 years 12:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No strong feelings. Another auction is ITN at present, Three Studies of Lucian Freud, so that might count against it a bit. The diamond has been renamed Pink Dream but the various redirects haven't been done yet. Thincat (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come down on the weak support side as this is getting coverage and people might come here to learn more about it, though I share Thincat's concerns. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've no idea how often these records are broken and so how noteworthy this event might be; however, I don't think the presence of the artwork record should prejudice posting -- if anything it's actually an interesting double. The article could do with some work, especially adding inline citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
