::::IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::(ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal ball]] to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::(ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a [[WP:CRYSTAL|crystal ball]] to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Cameroon launches its first airstrikes against Boko Haram in a successful operation to reclaim several villages and a military base briefly seized by the militant group in the Far North Region. (BBC)
Disasters and accidents
The MS Norman Atlantic ferry fire death toll rises to at least ten as the evacuation ends. (BBC)
The militant organisation Boko Haram attacks a village in Northern Cameroon, leaving an estimated 30 dead. (News24)Archived 2019-04-07 at the Wayback Machine
Traveling through thunderstorms over the Java Sea, Flight 8501 loses contact with air traffic control after the plane departed from the Indonesian city of Surabaya en route to Singapore with 162 people on board. (BBC)
The Italian-owned MS Norman Atlantic catches fire on a ferry run from Greece to Italy 44 nautical miles northwest of Corfu, with 222 vehicles, 411 passengers and 5 crew on board. Greek and Italian officials report at least one person is dead. (The Independent),(BBC)
Nominator's comments: 48 new metro stations opened on a single day is extremely rare anywhere in the world. We normally do not cover infrastructure articles, particularly positive ones that do not have to do with disasters, so this would be a welcome change to ITN. We posted a similar story about the Beijing Subway in December 2009 (or was it 2010) so there is precedent. --Colipon+(Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we posted the BS story some time ago. "Large expansion" doesn't warrant an ITN blurb. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Existing public infrastructure is quite often expanded; even more so with this subway which has been constantly expanded for the last 10-12 years and will be for many more. I'm not seeing a great deal of news coverage of this which might persuade me to weak support it. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 48 metro stations in a day. That needs to be mentioned in the blurb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - when mentioned properly in the blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Nergaal and 311dot's reasoning - infrastructure expansion is a routine event. We have posted about train lines opening before, but we focused on their groundbreaking high-speed train technolog,y which is not the case here. Mamyles (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Historical event, just one orange-tagged section needs fixing. Brandmeistertalk 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvements per Brandmeister. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Big story, truly in the news, and international importance. Article needs that fix up and tag pull. Jusdafax 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the end of a war is truly of international significance. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The war hasn't ended yet. It says that ISAF ended its war cooperation in Afghanistan. --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"President Obama Marks Formal End of War in Afghanistan" [1]; it's being phrased that way. The Korean War is considered over even though the US still has troops there. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who takes his word seriously? George Ho (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you or anyone take him seriously is irrelevant; it is what it is. Most RS are phrasing this as the war being over. The troops remaining are not there to conduct a war. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May 1, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld declares the end of "major combat operations" in Afghanistan. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about combat operations- in fact, most troops are actually gone now. Again, whether you believe those saying this is over or not is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a big event with immense strategic implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the longest war coalitions in modern history officially drawing to a close. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wait until orange-tagged missing references are resolved on both bolded articles. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. This is modern history.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more information. Hard to judge its worthiness without some details. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Latest is that one person died, ferry under tow to an Albanian port. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News is reporting the rescue effort is complete, but 7 people have died. Bobtalk 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to 8 as per BBC News. Bobtalk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Official death toll has now risen to 10, but still some discrepancy between passenger manifest and survivor count. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - With thanks to the nominator, but this does not appear to be developing into a major disaster worthy of coverage with a blurb here. Jusdafax 22:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be a "major disaster"? Surely the successful rescue of around 480 people is just as newsworthy? Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a more just world, it would be. Sadly the reality is that this is out of the headlines pretty much already, whereas if it had sunk with mass loss of life it would dominate the news for weeks as did the Costa Concordia, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting, but not ITN-worthy, as usual it's a good candidate for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While it's good many people were rescued, that also means it dropped out of the news. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The last major ferry disaster, the one in Korea, appeared benign in the first few hours but soon turned very deadly as they could not mount an effective rescue effort. Here, while the numbers of affected people are about the same, the rescue efforts are much more organized/larger in scale, and so far out from the initial event, only one affirmed death, and it doesn't seem likely that the death toll will go much higher. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. At least in the UK, this was quite heavily featured in the news, and rescuing 480 people from a burning ship in very bad weather seems quite an achievement. Not sure why only events causing x amount of deaths would only be considered of interest to Wikipedia readers. After all, ITN included the Chilean miners. Bobtalk 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might have been a major fire, but at the end of the day, one person died after jumping off, while others are said to be safe. Unless the rescue efforts had some daredevil stunts, I'd say this is as non-newsworthy as last weeks Sydney incident. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that almost all the passengers have been rescued makes it rather trivial. And as Rsrikanth05 points out, can be posted if the rescuers perform some Rajini style stunts.. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well-edited article about an interesting (though admittedly not groundbreaking) recent event. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is receiving coverage in the US and seems noteworthy enough for someone to want to come here to check on it. Dismas|(talk) 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Minor news, no WP:LASTING historical or encyclopaedic impact. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING seems to be more relevant to the existence of the article, which isn't what is being discussed here. People can also have good faith differences about what constitutes "encyclopedic impact"; obviously the nominator feels it does. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we shouldn't have an article on a news story per NOTNEWS, LASTING, whatever, ITN should not be including that stor just because it is otherwise in the news. (Please note: I'm not saying this necessarily applies to the article here in this case - as most major mass transit/transportation accidents with death tolls get articles on WP). --MASEM (t) 22:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, it is far too early to know if WP:LASTING will apply. What we have here is a five year old ship destroyed by fire, ten deaths and 450+ rescued. Mjroots (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree with that, but the existence of the article is not at issue on this page. RGloucester should nominate the article for deletion, which would then be an issue to consider here. That said RGloucester does not have a crystal ball to know what impact this will have in the future or how it will be considered historically or encyclopedically(whatever that means). 331dot (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support after expansion, surprised I haven't heard about this yet here in the US. Very likely to be a big story, but wait for a bit of expansion before posting. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon expansion. We don't need to rush to post this, but once we get enough information I think this merits posting. 331dot (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moved page from AirAsia Flight 8501 to Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Updated blurb. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the article is better updated/expanded. Note I also proposed the altblurb, which states how many are aboard the plane. Also, the blurb proposed here says the destination was Malaysia, but the article and sources say Singapore. -- Calidum 04:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, as I accidentally wrote the wrong nation in the hook, and was unsure of whether passengers should be added. Thanks for correcting that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that's the origin airport (in Indonesia), not the destination airport. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alternative blurb. Article needs some working on. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're waiting for the plane to be found, and the article looks ready to me. Anyone agree/disagree? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It has gone missing. My concern earlier was the length of the article. It was only 1000 odd characters, but now it looks ready to hit the main page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - Thanks to everyone for the quick improvements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2014 (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 Article reasonably filled out. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is not a field I'm familiar with nor a culture, but the article is reasonably complete and the external links helpful. One major failing as of this posting: no death section or information of any kind. Jusdafax 08:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading the article he seems to meet DC2, but as Jusdafax says some information on the passing would help(if possible). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there are no reports on the reason of death, I checked several sources. I don't think more information will appear. --Tone 16:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with what is there now, especially if it seems unlikely more information will come out. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but simply because the person in question isn't really "in the news", perhaps telling that we have no sources in the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[2] This is from the Slovakian equivalent of the US's NPR. Not getting any English hits but should not be a show stopper as long as we can write it in English. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Six-party agreement on budget (averted crisis and snap election)
Oppose - We didn't post the original crisis that this is the resolution to. As I understand it the head of government and most of the participating parties will remain the same. So I don't see this really going anywhere. However, if it is posted, the grammar of the blurb should be fixed. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I thank the nominator for this suggestion but even if the blurb was acceptable, this falls short of an ITN-worthy news event in my view. Jusdafax 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Something not happening (the snap election) due to standard political negotiating doesn't seem to meet the bar for me. 331dot (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokesman Alexander Lukashevich says that "the mere idea of the film is aggressively scandalous and that the reaction of the North Korean side is very understandable." (TASS)
A report says that even before the American Christmas Eve release of The Interview, thousands of Chinese citizens were downloading pirated versions of the movie on domestic video-sharing websites. By midday on December 26, more than 300,000 people had seen the film. (The New York Times)
The Interview grosses US$1 million on Christmas Day at the box office despite being released only to small theaters. (CNN)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support on the merits, though the article could use more detail. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no major problems with article. Notable enough person for RD. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - took a look at this article when I heard of his death and there wasn't a reference in sight. Much improved now. Notability clear. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable enough for RD. definitely.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: More than 80 people selectively killed makes it a very significant event. Widely reported in India and internationally as well. Please note that the blurb can be modified if it seems badly written. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely significant event, with an unfortunate number of casualties. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable, The massacre got significant coverage. Both blurbs OK. Faizan 16:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as government of India intensified counterattack and large number of casualties. And please link the article in blurb, there is no link to December 2014 Assam violence article. -Nizil (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This meets the threshold for a newsworthy event. I'm leaning more toward the second blurb, but either is fine. I agree with Nizil Shah that the December 2014 Assam violence article should be linked. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is linked. Millitant attack in 1, and are killed by Bodo millitants in 2. --17:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rsrikanth05 I've linked the article after they raised it! :) Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable ongoing attack with many casualties. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 19:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is a widely-reported event. But agree with Strike Eagle that the blurb needs fixing. In particular, can we replace 'native tribals' with the name of the actual tribe affected, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Newsworthy event. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted main blurb as the second is factually inaccurate (not all dead are tribal people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabab militants attack AMISOM's headquarters in Mogadishu, leaving three peacekeeping soldiers and a civilian contractor dead. Five of the attackers are also killed. (Al Jazeera)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose for now, article with unreferenced personal life section going to RD? I don't think so. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
"Support major dissident, reformer and politician, but article needs more reference work. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I believe that he is of great significance in Russia. However, after reading both his article and the cited news source, I am not confident that he has significant recognition abroad. Nonetheless, his achievements/contributions are interesting and could be interpreted as being on-par with other recent names in the RD space. Mamyles (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamyles: Just FYI, though often helpful, there doesn't have to be recognition from abroad as long as the person meets the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to criticize you, but just to make it clear, the guidelines above address this: "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..." Your statement was obviously in good faith, and you were not complaining, but the spirit of the guideline is clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
Fair point, thank you. I will keep that in mind when considering future RD nominations. (As an aside, I'm surprised at the limited number of submissions for RD given the liberal criteria.) Mamyles (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon article work per Medeis. Seems important to Russia. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1. He may be of importance in Russia, but I doubt he has any elsewhere. 2. His death was not a surprise (the article states that he suffered from an illness for a while before his death at 80 years old). 3. The article is not in a very good state, it doesn't have enough inline citations for verifying things like his early life and his wife and children. All of this combined tells me he shouldn't have a place at RD. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AmaryllisGardener: Please read my and Medeis' posts above; the fact that this relates only to Russia is immaterial to the nomination. Also, RD is for deaths that are not surprises. 331dot (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I read your discussion, and I said he "may" be of importance in Russia, I'm not sure of that, even. The not-surprising death is not a big thing, it just adds to my list. The most important one is number three. The article needs a bit of expanding also, IMO. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The not surprising death is why we have RD. Surprising deaths get full blurbs. Yakunin, a well known cleric, dissident, and reform politician certainly meets the prima facie requirements for an RD listing. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're right. But like I just said above, not the biggest concern of mine. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 04:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - after improved article work by Medeis. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. Per Medeis or by Medeis? JackofOz and Любослов Езыкин, among others, are fluent in proper Russian, I am not, and it is close to bedtime for me. I can look at English sources tomorrow if I am not busy in the real world. My Christmas guests are arriving Sunday. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article sourcing is very weak (roughly 80% unsourced). I would need to see a lot better sourcing than that to consider supporting or posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me emphasize that (1) I am at my parents' in the New Jersey Pine Barrens for the week, and the DSL has been off 80% of the time, and (2) I am babysitting three children under 10 years of age, so I am quite busy, too busy to get to this article myself before it will be stale. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xinhua reports that on December 21 Chinese police in Guangxi shot dead one person and detained 21 others. China considers the group to be "religious extremists" who were trying to cross the border into Vietnam. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: The recipients would be conferred the award in-person in a customary Presidential ceremony in January/February next year. They have been awarded officially by the President of India. [1]Regards, theTigerKing 17:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reason- Rarely awarded + Prominent people (Not necessarily Indians) awarded/conferred with the title. Regards, theTigerKing 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be better to post it in January/February when they are awarded by the President. Mere announcement doesn't merit a ITN..Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support Since they have been already awarded. The Indian Government rarely awards them...so they are pretty covered. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually post other countries' highest civilian awards, do we? I'm too lazy to check the archives, but I don't remember any off the top of my head. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was in discussion last time also. But it made to ITN :) Regards, theTigerKing 18:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that they are very scarcely awarded...45 in 60 years.....so they are extensively covered whenever awarded.. ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would move this suggestion to an ITNR thread as we have seen such arguments coming up while taking up the case of Bharat Ratna for ITN-R.Regards, theTigerKing 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - While it's true that we do not often post other country's awards, such as the Presidential Medal of Freedom, it is a good point that this award is significantly less awarded and therefore is deserving of special attention. Mamyles (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even though singular countries' awards are rarely reported, this is an award rarely bestowed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the nom nor the blurb explains what for. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the blurb should have a brief summary of this. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit patronising to ask the blurb to explain the significance of a linked article, after all if you don't know what the Sakharov Prize or Crafoord Prize is, then norm is to click on the link. The blurb is supposed to be snappy, and usually doesn't include a "brief summary" of the news item in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those other two awards have a more narrow consideration of what might be selected, while a "civilian award" is far too broad. Irregardless, I do think any award given to a person or group of persons, even the Nobel, should try to briefly explain the reason for the award at ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant and notable award.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE wtf? Why is a civilian award notable? 2 people got it last year. Why is a NATIONAL civilian award notable? The article doesn't even explain what did these 2 dudes get it for, nor deos the blurb. Why not post China's awards? Russia's? USA's? Absolutely nobody outside of India is reporting this. Nergaal (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these two dudes. WTF. However, I still don't know what that Obama dude or Bush dude did to get a Nobel, or be Time POTY. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a civilian award in any way less notable than a military one? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm afraid I am a bit suspicious of the motive behind this award. The lead of the award's article sayas that the Prime Minister nominates recipients. Looking at the two recipients, the first died in 1946, so he won't be attending the ceremony in February. But based on his wikipedia article he seems to be a worthy recipient. The second recipient however is the founder of the party that was elected to power this year. He was also the Prime Minister until the party lost power in 2004. It is very convenient that he be nominated for this award just a few months after one of his proteges comes to power. To give an American equivalent, imagine if a Republican president is elected in 2016. Then imagine that president awarding Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush with "America's highest civilian award" in December 2017. Sure the first guy is probably a worthy recipient, but is not here to actually receive it. So that just leaves us with the other guy... Would we put that on the front page of Wikipedia? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose self-congratulatory partisan action per Athomeinkobe. μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVajpayee is a living former PM who is being awarded a Bharat Ratna when he is NOT the PM as in the case of Indira Gandhi/Jawaharlal Nehru. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a bona fide civilian award, which has been presented only a handful of times in a country with a population of over a billion. I don't really see any justification in the opposition who make basically no argument other than either straw man arguments ("suspicion over motives"? Your personal opinion regarding the motivations of the awarding panel is fascinating but entirely irrelevant in this case...) or plain nonsense (e.g. "wtf"). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After taking your comments on board, I thought that perhaps I read too much into the circumstances of the award based on my own preliminary research. So I just tried a google search of "Bharat Ratna" to see what has been said about the decision, and the first two news results were:
Granted these are opinion pieces, but it appears that at least some people who are interested in Indian politics (I am not) have concluded that this is a political move. There is no meniton of an "awarding panel" that I can find; this appears to be a decision taken solely by PM Modi. The first article listed above says "Prime Minister Modi is on a mission to carve an alternative iconography.", and the second says "Those who wanted Vajpayee honoured invariably belonged to the BJP, which, now heading the Central government, has conferred the Bharat Ratna on him."
So, with respect, I think it is not a straw man argument. But isn't India's population irrelevant? A government award given to a former leader of the ruling party at the first available opportunity looks like a sham to me, regardless of whether the country's population is a thousand or a billion. On the other hand, you could say that finding someone more worthy than your former boss is easier in a country with a population of one billion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it is a political move ? Is there any policy/guidelines/precedent to support this as a reasonable criteria against displaying it on main page?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None at all that I am aware of, but I'm still new here. I'm just giving an alternate view to this whole "one in a billion" story. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should have existed when Rajiv Gandhi was given a posthumus BR. If you are going to take that NDTV piece at face value [ehich quite frankly is written by someone who has been anti BJP], then things are just going to go haywire. --12:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Bharat Ratna is awarded not frequently and both persons who received are important persons in history of India. Vajpayee is also well respected in opposition parties too. There would be controversy wherever politics is involved. -Nizil (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big award, given rarely, well reported. WP should not be checking any political motives nor is it our job to check if the recipient deserved the award. Many of the Nobel peace prizes won't find place in ITN going by that criteria. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't post the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Medal of Honor recipients, British/Commonwealth honors, etc. So why post this? -- Calidum 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any more reason to post this than to post awards of other countries' top honours, which we don't tend to post. Neljack (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question on rarity: There were just awards last year? And every parliamentary term apparently gets at least one: apparently only the parliaments elected on 1967, 1977 and 2004, out of 16 general elections, didn't get to give out awards. I would've been more convinced of its rarity if they were truly sparingly awarded, not at least once by every parliamentary term. –HTD 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing why we should post this top civilian award when we don't post others. It also doesn't seem that rare in terms of how often it is awarded. Further, just because the award is given to people important to India does not mean that the awarding itself is ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Killing of Antonio Martin
Not going anywhere. Let's move on. Seattle (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2014 (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.
Article:2014 Ferguson unrest#Antonio Martin (talk·history· ) Blurb: Police in Missouri, USA kill another black teenager, Antonio Martin, provoking community unrest. () News source(s): The Guardian, 24 Dec 2014 Credits:
Nominator's comments: Important to the continuing story of anti-black police brutality in Missouri following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the killing of Eric Garner in New York. -Sumana Harihareswara 15:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Your bias is showing. -- Calidum 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb can be always reworded, it's about the scale of protests. Brandmeistertalk 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scale of the protests? There is video of the man brandishing a gun and accordng to the Independent, "the chief of St Louis County Police, said Mr Martin, the young man who was shot dead, was “known” to the force and had been arrested three times since he was 17. He said the incidents involved armed robbery, assault and the illegal use of a weapon." We're not about narratives here, we're about facts. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Firstly, the blurb is outrageous. Secondly, this is just another parochial crime incident that doesn't belong at ITN. It is yet to be seen whether this will have a WP:LASTING impact. Regardless, information is murky, and the linked section has no information. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and a rather offensive blurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - So far, this looks like a single police killing with a relatively local response. This may become more newsworthy if more widespread protests or startling circumstances come to light. Mamyles (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose we need to stop this nonsense. Pulling a gun on a cop in the US is likely to end in death, whether you're black, white or blue. This is becoming really tedious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unless there's going to be another 6 months of protests revolving around this kid's death, which resulted because he unwisely pointed a gun at cops, it is not notable. Also, I dislike the suggested blurb; it has a very strong bias. Epicgenius (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close as POV - Anti-black police brutality? Said "victim" pulled a gun. Drop the sensationalized narrative! 108.230.212.106 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very obvious bias here - not appropriate for Wikipedia, IMO. Challenger l (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2014 (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.
The FDA says that in regards to the 31-year-old policy against gay men making blood donations it will recommend lifting the lifetime ban early next year, replacing it with a policy barring donations from men who have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months. (AP)
International relations
The Parliament of Ukraine removes the country’s legislative block on forming military alliances, allowing the government to push forward with plans to accede to NATO. (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
--Aerospeed (Talk) 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for RDs, it's always helpful to give a note as to why the individual meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination reasoning: His case list is a history of crime in Canada, both white collar and violent. Peter Demeter (the longest trial in Canadian history), Conrad Black, Garth Drabinsky, Karlheinz Schreiber (a case connected to a former Prime Minister), Robert Latimer all were front page material for dailies across Canada. He suspended his practice for three months, to campaign against the return of the death penalty. Various honours in law community. A TV and radio host. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he is one of the most known legal figures in Canada. Of contemporary legal figures in Canada, I'd say he's the most notable for law. Others are notable as politicians (PM Mulroney) or hockey (Eagleson), but pure law? He's tops. And do many lawyers get listed? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since he is clearly notable in his field of expertise, having a considerable list of accolades in both his nation and outside of it. Challenger l (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Challenger 1. And per the fact that he is clearly notable and the article is well sourced.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He actually died Dec. 24, so not sure why this whole discussion was listed as Dec. 23. I've posted the article as an RD, since there was no comments to the opposite. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (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.
Nominator's comments: Lloyd was one of the most respected comedy writers in British television, jointly responsible for writing the hit comedies Are You Being Served (and it's follow-up Grace and Favor) and Allo! Allo!. --1.121.182.7 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not significantly prominent enough to show readers his death on the Main Page, although the article is in good shape. --George Ho (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Of course, one of the most prominent English language comedy writers. 94.212.132.191 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Aside from being knighted I'm not sure what makes him very important to his field(I assume the relevant criteria). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be in the same class as Roy Clarke. Not being British I will withhold my vote. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the article doesn't adequately demonstrate he was top of his field. And the article itself is weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He wasn't the absolute top in his domain. Epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As well as his writing work for the top UK sitcoms, he may be familiar to older US readers, as he appeared in Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, which was quite big in its day. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on article quality. He's definitely had a significant presence in British sitcoms, but the article is very bare-bones, doing very little besides describing a few bullet points of his career. Challenger l (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Recipient of India's highest film honor along with 9 National Film Awards. Please note that the article was updated by multiple users and there's no clear single majority updater. Thanks, --ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Clearly a significant figure in Indian cinema. —Vensatry(ping) 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the merits. Reading his article and the page describing his awards, he seems to be very important to Indian cinema. I don't know enough about that field to know if a blurb is warranted here(I would probably lean yes, though) but this should be posted in some form. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added another blurb for this nomination. By the way, since we posted celebrities' death as blurbs this year, let's support this as well. At least it's not a Hollywood personality. --George Ho (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only, Oppose blurb Too minor in the broad indian cinema aka bollywood. Plus he was 84 so old age death blurbs should be reserved only for very prominent figures -- Ashish-g55 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Indian cinema aka bollywood" That tells how well you know about Indian cinema and Bollywood. And, too minor? He is a recipient of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, the highest honour for films in India. Besides, he is one of the few South Indian directors who made it big in Bollywood. —Vensatry(ping) 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me echo Vensatry's words. I'm surprised how you declared him a minor figure when you can't even differentiate Indian cinema and bollywood!! ƬheStrikeΣagle 11:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - Appears plenty notable enough for RD; blurb candidates, in my opinion, should be mind-bogglingly notable. I don't see that here, although I'm unfamiliar with the subject and willing to be convinced otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb, notable for RD sure, but a blurb? No. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - Agree that RD is the correct choice here. Jusdafax 02:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD.SpencerT♦C 17:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is a first launch of the most powerful Russian rocket. 24.5 ton capability to LEO. A significant event for astronautics and an expansion of Russian capabilities. --Hektor (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support - notable enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - even though this is technically a new variant rather than a new type of rocket (and hence probably not ITN/R) - it is the largest rocket Russia has ever launched (the last time the USSR launched something bigger was Buran in 1988) - and the first time the Angara has flown to orbit. --W.D. Graham 18:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article hasn't adequately explained recent events. It needs more updates. --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new variant of established rocket is more industry news than an encyclopedic achievement. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This article contains very brief information (one ¶) about the Angara 5 rocket, but virtually no information about the launch itself. If the launch is truly notable, then something a little more than a short list of launches would be present. Mamyles (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following the December 17 announcement that it would lift its moratorium on terror-related death penalty cases, Pakistan announces that it will execute 500 militants in the coming weeks. (AFP)
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.
Nominator's comments: This may be a domestic issue, but I think this is globally significant. Who is able to contact NK people? --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant escalation of this "cyber war".--BabbaQ (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant event, it's not very common that an entire country's internet goes down. --AmaryllisGardenertalk 01:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At least at this stage. If it is tied as a response to the Sony hack, that might make it more interesting. But at the same time, this could have been a gov't action, it could have a simple outage problem, etc. --MASEM (t) 03:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh please. I could take out North Korea's Internet with a DoS attack from my desk. This is a non-story in the Internet security community, other than as a source of amusement. Global media reactions are hysteria at this point. Wait until specialist sources actually analyze this (very small) attack, which will be a non-story since everyone will have forgotten by then. The article is also barely updated. D7QB (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Support in principle, but the article is not sufficiently updated (two short sentences in paragraph on ISP's) with material dealing strictly with the outage itself. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the moment because it seems it cannot be conclusively proved that this is a deliberate outage, a nation-state DDoS or just a technical failure (see [7]). We should only consider posting this if the cause is definitive and newsworthy. CaptRik (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only way this should be on ITN would be something along the lines "There EXISTS internet in NK". I bet people would click on the link then. Nergaal (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — If I understood Monday's coverage correctly, the only people in N. Korea who have Net access are about 1,000 gov't. officials & people employed by gov't. or Party agencies, i.e. the In Crowd. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) It's back on today anyway. Sca (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might be inclined to support if there's a link to the Sony hack beyond media speculation. Other than that, there's not much significance in it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to oppose this unless we find out for certain what exactly happened and if it was related to the Sony hack.331dot (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew the internet dying on North Korea would be the impetus on posting the Sony leaks? Amazing. –HTD 18:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since we didn't post the Sony hack, the rationale to post this as a tie-in to the Sony hack doesn't hold water.--WaltCip (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2014 (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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Significantly well-known singer (has an OBE for his contributions). RD only as death at 70 by lung cancer. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a major figure in rock music with a long career. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ITN - significant contributor within the world of rock music. Not just RD but ITN mention in my opinion is warranted here.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be really hard pressed for a blurb here. He was important, yes, but he's not a Nelson Mandela or Margeret Thatcher, nor his death surprising like Robin Williams (that is, I don't think there was much about his lung cancer, but someone dying of lung cancer at 70 is not a surprise). --MASEM (t) 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've just heard this news, and I came straight here to nominate him for RD. Absolutely top of his field, and a great loss to music. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Somebody yell at me if I've cocked it up—the markup is a lot more complicated than last time I posted something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a pain. You did it exactly right, as far as I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We will let you know if you "cocked it up on Cocker" :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support RD. He's up where he belongs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Article in excellent shape - easily one of the most notable musicians of his genre. The circumstances of his departure do not warrant a blurb, since he was 70 and very ill. Challenger l (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This event has been major news across the UK this week. The deaths and today's church memorial service have dominated headlines on the papers. --Rcsprinter123(say) @ 21:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - notable incident. Quite rare. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support horrific and rare incident, road traffic accidents of such nature in the UK are unusual, but including the fact that three of the deceased were from the same family, and out Christmas shopping, a tragedy. I will pre-emptively acknowledge that this will be subject to opposition from those questioning the long-lasting impact of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportif the blurb is re-worded and the concerned article is linked within it. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, it has received a lot of coverage in the UK, but it's just a road traffic accident all said and done. The article is also scrappy and poorly referenced. Formerip (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why Should this story be posted on the front page while the Cairns Child Murders is not? They seem just as notable...94.197.120.44 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not greatly significant enough, despite disturbing nature of the topic. Also, the article is (now)inadequately referenced. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Parochial incident in one city with no WP:LASTING impact. Makes a fine tabloid shock piece, but has no encyclopaedic significance. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Road accidents with a similar death toll happen every day somewhere in the world. That this one gained more media coverage because it happened in a Western city a few days before Christmas does not make it especially notable. If it had happened in rural India, we wouldn't even have an article on it and it wouldn't have been covered in the news, except locally. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Accidents like these happen everyday at multiple places...and as Jim Michael says, this one is more covered as it happened in a Western city. Not a significant event at-all. ƬheStrikeΣagle 12:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such accidents does not deserve to be on main page. -Nizil (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2014 (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: