• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

• Commment I've suggested an alt-blurb that highlights what I think is the significant aspect of the story in case people think it is worthy of ITN. Personally I'm reserving judgement until I've thought about it a bit more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• The blurbs are incorrect. This isn't the around-the-world flight; that one is planned for 2015. This is a flight across the United States (not non-stop or anything, but still entirely under solar power). It's an interesting project, and I would probably support this regardless. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose sorry to burst your bubble guys, but they have not yet circumnavigated the word. The first version of the airplane just finished going across the US, presumably to raise funds. The second version of the aircraft is supposed to go across the ocean(s), and I remember them mentioning that it would happen in 2015ish. Nergaal (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah sorry, I obviously misread the article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - The plane has now landed. Andise1 (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Not as huge as the upcoming around-the-world flight, but still an impressive achievement and a pretty big tech story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The first flight was ITN-worthy. The first trans-Atlantic/trans-Pacific flight will be also. A stop-start journey across the US is not. --RA (✍) 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nominated by Thryduulf (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Personalmountains (talk · give credit)

• Comment I did a couple of updates this afternoon because I had time, but I'm not reliable. I'd also put this nomination on hold until we know more. This could be a major disaster (100 missing right now) or just a spectacular explosion. pm (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support but wait on posting – Major disaster regardless of fatalities. Several thousand people evacuated with over 100 missing. Once the article is expanded a bit and more information comes, I'd be comfortable with this going up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support if 30 buildings have truly been destroyed this is a major disaster already, even with no more fatalities, however article should be expanded more before posting. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Details are really slow to come in, there's been nothing new for a while except the confirmed death. This is why I initially recommended waiting a bit. Concerning the buildings, this image tells the story. pm (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Significant destruction such as this is notable, regardless of the casualties. Large number evacuated, too. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - huge disaster whether or not a bunch of people died. Article is sufficiently updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ready well-updated and unopposed, basically a whole town wiped out by an industrial accident. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Five dead now. pm (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Posted in 4 hrs and with 1 dead person? Hos is that notable enough for ITN? Weve many articles with updates for longer. Yet no postingLihaas (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a huge industrial accident that would have been notable with 0 dead. And where were you over a day ago that you are complaining now? μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nominated by Eugen Simion 14 (talk · give credit)

A plane crashes at San Francisco Internation Airport. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support when more information is added to the article. Also, at present the article has a blatantly non-free image. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This did not use the template. I had put the template on to make this correct, but I left the original comment. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is a big event that can garner headlines. However, I do agree that the article needs more info and has to have the non-free image removed. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• close Two injured, one seriously enough to be transported to a hospital? μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  Close? What? -- tariqabjotu 20:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  Closing this now would be improper; this is a good faith nomination. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wait for more details to come in on the nature of the casualties. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I won't say close, but early reports suggest no fatalities. It's only early reports, so that could very well change. But if there really are no or few fatalities, there isn't really an ITN story. If we reported every plane crash, ITN would be filled up pretty regularly with them. Without trying to seem macabre, a plane crash isn't an ITN story unless there are mass casualties. Redverton (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Blurb could use some work, but it's an international event, even if no fatalities are reported. Why would only deaths make it notable? Steven Walling • talk 20:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Because whilst plane crashes aren't necessarily a regular occurrence, they happen often enough that a plane crash is not in of itself a notable event. We don't post every plane crash, unless there's something particularly notable about it, and a plane crash with no fatalities is nothing particularly notable. Redverton (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm !voting to repost for sure, now that fatalities were confirmed. This is the first crash of a Boeing 777 involving fatalities, ever. Steven Walling • talk 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Leaning support I would normally oppose crashes without fatalities, but have you guys seen images of the airplane? The amount of damage to the plane makes the fact that there were no causalities incredibly notable IMO. At a first glance it reminds me of the Hudson river crash-landing a few years ago. Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support That people are opposing based on the lack of casualties is unsurprising (given the way people think at ITN), but absurd. This story is obviously in the news, and the fact that there were no fatalities is irrelevant. Yes, we cannot and do not report every plane crash on the planet. However, this is a Boeing 777 operated by a major world airline with hundreds of people aboard (crashing at a major airport where traffic will be severely disrupted). This is only the second hull loss for the Boeing 777, one of the world's most populars planes, since it was introduced in 1995. The previous 777 hull loss was British Airways Flight 38 in January 2008 (with surprisingly similar circumstances: a crash upon landing at a major airport with everyone surviving), and that was posted. BA38 caused serious disruption at Heathrow and led to an investigation that uncovered a potentially fatal flaw in the engines on 777 planes (that almost took down another long-haul jet). Plane crashes and hull losses for wide-body jets are (thankfully) quite rare and all are, rightfully so, notable international news stories. -- tariqabjotu 20:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose – I'd hold off until more details about the well-being of the passengers are known. With only two injuries stated thus far, there's nothing that really sets this apart from other plane crashes to make it ITN worthy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Posted per developing consensus. Tariqabjotu's point is very convincing.--v/r - TP 20:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  There's an understanding in all "support" comments on ITN/C that they're actually "support, provided the article is sufficiently updated". The Asiana Airlines Flight 214 article does not meet the update standards yet, regardless of whether notability standards have been met here. -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

His opinion of calling other people's comments "Absurd" is indeed a cvery comvincing reason to post???Lihaas (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that was certainly quick. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• For people look for a more macabre story, local news is now saying at least two fatalities and 12 taken to hospitals. Dragons flight (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per tariqabjotu. If more information should come forward that indicates that this is not notable, we can re-examine should that happen. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Could someone explain the notability of this? Planes crash all the time.68.101.71.187 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Wait Still looks like a relatively standard aviation accident, despite 2 deaths I've read about. Brandmeister 21:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. A hull-loss accident of a wide-body jet operated by an airline with premier league standards at a major international airport is news whatever way you look at it and however many people are or are not killed or injured. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment I've posted a couple blurbs and a photo. The article is improving and hopefully isn't too far from the quality needed for posting to ITN. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems to be fairly minor aviation incident, of course things could change. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - fatalities now being reported, third 777 hull loss. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, yes, I said "second"... I didn't think it was too exciting to mention a plane catching on fire at the gate (we don't even have an article on that, and I doubt we would). -- tariqabjotu 21:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is the "posted" remark above accurate, or a support vote? μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It was posted briefly. The poster quickly pulled it, but didn't note the pull here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pull. I don't usually support pulls, but this incident is relatively minor as others state, with few casualties so far. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but it is not actually posted yet. Formerip (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

An admin should fix that. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

An admin should fix what? It was posted but removed by the same person after eight minutes, primarily because I mentioned that the article wasn't (and perhaps still isn't) long enough. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't say "posted" here in bold without also saying "pulled" here in bold. I am not about to start messing with that--an admin should, that's why they're alled admins. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Repost have you guys even read the arguments made opposite to your views? Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason for not posting is that plane crashes are not particularly uncommon and nothing really distinguishes this. Plus, it's a terrible mistake to take the view that we should blithely follow whatever 24h news carriers think is the most wow thing currently happening. I don't see any strong counter-arguments, but I do see a bit of scratching around to defend a weak position. I don't know if this is the second or third hull loss for a 777, but I don't think it's a clincher either way. Formerip (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was going to say disproportionate US-centrism, but I'll try to find another way. It's going to be massive news on the TV screens and websites of our American and other English speaking readers, because it's in a very accessible place and pictures are readily available. It's a sad but very minor incident on the scale of global aviation. Can those who are understandably terrifically excited about it tell us if they would be even nominating it if it happened in a third world nation and there were no pictures? HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Difficult to say. Part of the reason this is notable is because it happened at a major international hub airport in a country with first world airport safety standards and first world landing systems etc designed to make incidents significantly less likely. There are not many airports in the developing world that have that kind of technology and many (but not all) airports in those parts of the word have lower safety standards. I suppose I would be less likely to support if this was at a small regional airport, regardless of country. Without the pictures I don't think I would be supporting it this early because it would likely be harder to appreciate the severity of the incident, but if this exact incident happened at a comparably major international airport with comparable safety standards in say Kenya (although I have no idea of such an airport exists there) then yes I think I would still be supporting. For the record though I'm British, not American, and so this is not a case of home nation bias. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, when I was last at SF Airport I was told, by officials there, that its technical facilities were crap. That was about five years ago. Dunno if it's improved since then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My only visits were three weeks apart in 1995, so I can't help with any personal knowledge. A friend who is into planes rates SFO highly, but don't really know on what criteria. Regardless, the technical facilities will be being judged in comparison to similar US Airports (almost certainly inluding LAX) rather than airports in places like Nicaragua and the DRC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm trying to think of an airport so third-world that there wouldn't be pictures of the event within a few hours, but so popular that an airline would find it worth their time and money to fly an aircraft there that could fit over 300 passengers. This comparison cannot be made because examples of such don't exist. And on what basis do you say that this was a "minor incident" on the scale of global aviation? One of the world's largest, safest, and most popular airliners experiencing a hull loss with passengers aboard is very much notable and of interest in aviation.

Honestly, this is truly aggravating. ITN/C is happy to shoo in stories that most people probably don't see in the news because they check some superlative boxes, but when we have a story that is in the news, we need to find any excuse to take a wait-and-see approach. --tariqabjotu 23:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I said close above when there were no reported deaths and say oppose now that this has made it into the ranks of very minor deadly air accidents. We'd never post this if it happened in San Jabip. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  There is no basis for that, and we likely never will have any. Planes of this size don't fly to tiny towns in remote places; how can we make that comparison? It is likely true that CNN would not have wall-to-wall coverage if a 777 crashed like this in Jakarta, and it is likely true that CNN would have nonstop coverage if a 737 landed like this in Los Angeles, but the inequity of coverage should not shield the notability here. We post plane crashes that meet notability standards from all over the world (e.g. 2012 Kazakhstan Antonov An-72 crash), so I fail to see the problem here. More likely, if this crash had happened in "San Jabip", we would have gotten no objection. -- tariqabjotu 23:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Just because something is in front page on newspapers does not actually mean that that story should also be on wikipedias front page, at least that is my understanding, we do not post new stories there everyday after all. This is interesting story certainly, but since it seems deaths have mostly been avoided this is not in my opinion notable enough unless something changes. Size of the accident plane should not be a factor here. 188.238.36.251 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I wonder how many Americans understand how disproportionate their news coverage is? (I acknowledge that my own country's is pretty bad as well.) As I said earlier, "It's going to be massive news on the TV screens and websites of our American and other English speaking readers, because it's in a very accessible place and pictures are readily available." One could argue that the imbalance is so bad that many people in western nations don't see it because they even don't see what happens elsewhere at all. I want everyone to have a look at the school shooting article below. 42 people, mostly kids, killed. Did it make your TV news? This is a global encyclopaedia. We must look beyond the balance chosen by TV executives in wealthy nations. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I think you overstate the exclusivity of this problem to western nations; people are more interested in stories that are closer to them, both geographically and emotionally -- that's just the way things are. That being said, I already addressed this point above: the inequity of coverage should not shield the notability here. Yes, stations like CNN are devoting more airtime to this story because it happened in the U.S. However, the fact that they do so doesn't mean that every one of their top stories is trivial and not worth ITN's attention. This discussion should be about the notability of the story as it is, not a rehash of the same tired arguments about the quality of American news coverage or the alleged insularity of its viewers. -- tariqabjotu 00:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Please don't misrepresent me. I did not say "that every one of their (CNN's) top stories is trivial and not worth ITN's attention". Nor did I suggest anything like that. Resorting to misrepresentation weakens your case. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Right. The comment I responded to said nothing about this particular incident and was just pontification about the bias of U.S. media. In conjunction with your oppose vote, it is obvious what the thrust of your opposition was. I don't really care what you believe "weakens my case"; everyone involved with ITN knows well that you have a reputation for yelling U.S.-centrism at every news story, so there is no need to really refute your remarks to that effect. Therefore, you can ignore my preceding comment if that makes you feel better. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
            • So now we're at the stage of personal attacks and labelling editors, eh? I have tried very hard to choose my words very carefully here. All you are doing is discussing and insulting me, rather than rationally discussing my words. As I've already said, such posts significantly weaken the case for posting this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Please see Two deaths, 181 hospitalized, 1 person unaccounted for. SarahStierch (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we all already knew that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't in the article until that was confirmed (about ninety minutes ago now) and some people opposed explicitly because there were no fatalities, so, no, it is not correct to assume everyone knew that already. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - China Germany India Australia Nigeria Nigeria Switzerland France Ireland North Korea South Korea etc. show that this event is being covered internationally. Andise1 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Pull I was quite aware two people were dead when I reposted my opposition above. This is historically and encyclopedically minor and, if I dare say so, hugely, what do they call it? Youessocentric? Who in the world s going to care about this a month from now except the victims and plaintiffs to the lawsuits? μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You really think an administrator is going to listen to a line of argument like this? Look at Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accidents as well. Shii (tock) 01:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The first fatal crash of one of the most popular airliners, following 18 years of service, "is historically and encyclopedically minor"? And it's US-centric, despite the fact that this was an international flight from South Korea on which 78% of the passengers were of Chinese, South Korean or Japanese nationality? —David Levy 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse post as administrator. I was just headed to post it myself when I saw it already had been. Ks0stm 01:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support post. People are focusing far too much on the death toll here--the crash of a plane the size of a 777 is a rare event indeed (and was in fact a Korean airplane in case no one noticed) and suitably notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• File:Asiana Airlines flight 214 crash at SFO- cropped.jpg might make for a better image. Nergaal (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'm interrupting a wikibreak to support this item. I find the opposition mind-boggling. A Boeing 777 crashed — resulting in a hull loss — and people are suggesting that this constitutes a minor aviation incident? Even before the fatalities became known, such a claim was simply incredible.
  HiLo's assertions, while typical of his participation here, come as a bit of a surprise. This was an international flight (originating in South Korea), for which the reported passengers included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans, 61 Americans and 1 Japanese citizen. And as Tariq noted, the crash of British Airways Flight 38 (which occurred in the UK) was posted too, despite a lack of fatalities. —David Levy 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • David, like Tariqabjotu before you, you chose to attack and misrepresent me rather than carefully consider and comment on the actual words I carefully chose. As one of those who challenge the majority view at times, I get used to this treatment, and I know it takes a while for new ideas to take root, with rude behaviour like yours being a normal part of the process, but it's still a bad look for Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not attacking you. I'm expressing disagreement with your position, which I don't intend to misrepresent. (Please explain how I've done so.) —David Levy 05:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'd say "while typical of his participation here" is a bit gratuitous, but I do not see how HiLo48's position on this candidacy is being misrepresented. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Whether one agrees or disagrees with HiLo's comments at ITN/C (and I've done both), it's undeniable that many involve claims of bias, particularly related to events occurring in the United States. In noting this, my intent wasn't to insult or degrade him. My point was that despite the frequency with which he presents such arguments, I was surprised to encounter one in this particular instance. —David Levy 06:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
          • You have still failed to understand my point. I wonder what I should put that down to? Given the most likely explanation, I see no point in again trying to explain it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I don't know what you regard as "the most likely explanation". I do know that your refusal to explain how I've misrepresented your position leaves me unable to address your concern (or even determine whether you've understood my point). —David Levy 07:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose/Pull for lack of encyclopedic content. ITN items are supposed to be BOTH relevant AND encyclopedic. Since almost nothing about the technical details of the crash are known, casualties are very low, and impact is also low at this time, I can't see why this this in ITN. If people want to read about the crash, they can visit whatever other news site they want. To address Tariq's points above; if this crash lead to an investigation that uncovered a technical flaw in the aircraft (as was the case for the first 777 loss), then the article becomes ITN worthy; or if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes, then it becomes ITN worthy; or if this were the first crash of a type, then it becomes ITN worthy. None of those are true, however. Lastly, internet new sites cover nearly everything that happens, since it doesn't cost anything to shuffle around their frontpage. I know ALL of the news sites here gave the crash top coverage on their websites, for a few minutes before moving on to whatever sports or gossip thing. Simply having an event covered in the international news is not sufficient for ITN inclusion. 91.153.150.45 (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  "First crash of a type"? Like the first fatal crash of a Boeing 777? —David Levy 08:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  "if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes" according to of the next 10 flights scheduled to land at San Francisco 3 are delayed, 1 has been diverted and 6 have been cancelled. I'd say that is more than a few minutes disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  If the first-of-a-type angle is to be taken, it needs to be included in the blurb. "The first crash of a B777 to cause a death occurs in such and such" for example (there is already an altblurb, so I won't replace it with another one but if someone else wants to please do so). And have you ever been to SFO? Those delays/cancellations are completely normal for that airport (and completely normal for most major airports). That's not an out of ordinary disprution at all.91.153.150.45 (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  That fact that it is the first fatal crash of a 777, or indeed that the plane is/was a 777 is too detailed for the blurb. The blurb is a headline that shouldn't contain technical information. As for the disruption, the entire airport was closed for 5 hours and the incident runway and the one parallel to it remain closed nearly 15½ hours later, that is not normal disruption at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  or if the crash disrupted traffic at a major airport for more than a few minutes, then it becomes ITN worthy Um, hello? The airport was closed for at least four hours. Because SFO is one of the U.S.'s major airports and international gateways, planes had to be diverted to as far as Los Angeles (550 km away). Two of the four runways at the airport remain closed, resulting in continued major delays (as of right now, FlightStats still rates the delays at the airport at 5/5 Excessive). -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment not sure about this really, two fatalities? Some traffic disruption? Didn't that match 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash? Unless anything comes from the accident investigation, I would expect the aviation project to soon nominate this for deletion as it's really not that notable. (In fact, the most notable aspects, the first fatal 777 crash and disruption to SFO are completely missing from the blurb). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  I would expect the aviation project to soon nominate this for deletion Yeah, ok. Anyway, if you have a better suggestion for the blurb, you can make one (or just change it). I don't believe the disruption to the airport needs to be mentioned, because, despite the cluelessness from the IP above, I feel it should go without saying that a plane crash at an airport would cause disruption at that airport. If the "first" point seems necessary, perhaps something along the lines of...

  Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (aircraft pictured) crashes while landing at San Francisco International Airport, resulting in the first fatal Boeing 777 crash.

  The problem is (a) that's quite long and (b) reading that, provided one knows what a B777 is, one would likely assume that far more than two people died. Maybe you could replace resulting with killing two people, but that still seems long to me. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  What do you think about: "In the first fatal Boeing 777 incident, Asiana Airlines Flight 214 (aircraft pictured) crashes while landing at San Francisco International Airport, killing two people." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  That makes the technical detail (meaningless to most people) about the plane type far too prominent. I don't get why the aircraft model needs to be in the blurb at all, but if it does it should absolutely not be the first thing mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  The real notability of this crash isn't the loss of two people (that happens very frequently), but the fact it was the first fatal crash of a 777. That's why it's significant. If this was a Cessna or a helicopter crash which killed two, it would be laughed out of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  That's a significant element, but as discussed above, it's hardly the only thing that makes the crash notable. —David Levy 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  I realize that you seek to avoid repeating the word "crash" (which is highly desirable), but the first fatal incident involving a Boeing 777 occurred in 2001, when a ground worker died as a result of burns suffered in a refueling fire.
  While notable, the fact that this was the first fatal crash of a Boeing 777 needn't be mentioned in the blurb. Readers clicking through to the article will see this information in its lead. —David Levy 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  So if that's not the big deal, and the scarce loss of life is hardly notable, is it just the disruption to SFO that's the reason this had so much support for ITN? I'm just trying to understand what makes this more notable than, say the first helicopter crash in the City of London which killed two people and disrupted traffic in the centre of one of the world's most populous cities for days on end. (Tariq - as for aviation project's proclivity to delete articles which have no lasting effect in their opinion, see this). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  What is notable is the combination of all of in no particular order (a) wide-body aircraft (b) operated by airline with premier league standards (c) happened at a major international airport (d) happened at an airport with first world safety standards (e) airline with long and uneventful service record (f) caused significant disruption to the airport and (g) caused fatalities and serious injuries. I'd venture that c, d and g are the important points for the blurb. Imho the Vauxhall helicopter crash was equally but differently notable (air crash in the centre of a major world city, first helicopter crash on record in the that city, fatalities including on ground, major transport disruption), and as was pointed out in the AfD for that article just because an event is an aviation accident, that doesn't mean that only aviation project notability is relevant (although the SFO crash is pretty exclusively an aviation incident). Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. That there were only 2 people killed should add to the notability of this accident. This was actually a very big accident that happened to end well due to the plane not tipping over when it cartwheeled. Yesterday when some eyewitnesses told that the plane had cartwheeled, the experts didn't believe that because the plane was relatively intact. However, it turns out that the plane did in fact cartwheel but in a rather neat way with the body of the plane and both wings well off the ground and parallel to it. So, the wings didn't touch the ground during the cartwheeling, had that happened the plane would have tipped over, and it would have been a completely different story as far as the casualties are concerned, but the dynamics of the accident would have been the same. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nominated by Lihaas (talk · give credit)

• Support wait for the winner of the men's tournament and make one blurb for both winners. Hektor (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Prepare two blurbs for both possibilities now so that the right one can be posted immediately after the game is over. Count Iblis (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Is a blurp a type of blurb you let out accidentally and have to apologise for? Formerip (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected the typo :). Count Iblis (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The article (or articles if we go the route of updating the singles articles, which I recommend), will need to be updated with prose before they can be posted. It certainly won't go up the minute Murray finishes this off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're going to jinx it. -- tariqabjotu 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Murray is serving for the match, quickly prepare a text! Count Iblis (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• This has concluded and I've added a blurb. Someone may want to adjust the boldings, or not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we normally bold the winner or what they've won? I've added a suggested picture. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • We bold whichever article is updated. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Both article "updates" are quite lacking in references for each player. Spencer 01:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ThaddeusB (talk · give credit)

• Support upon expansion of article. Large-scale attacks on children are notable. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What does age have to do with notability? That article has not much to add nor with repercussions. It could go on a list of terrorist incidents page( where I have added it). Itll just end up being an orphan stub that will be neglected, like nost article created just for ITN. opposeLihaas (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on groups of children (especially when they are targeted, as is the case here) are rare and particularly heinous, making them more notable. The casualty numbers are also increasing. This story is now on the front page of NBC News and other organizations, indicating they find it notable enough to do so- and this is the "in the news" page. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Being about children makes it more notable because the children were put there by adults. Adults generally have a choice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - 42 dead now and 100+ missing is quite significant even in an unstable region. (Note, most, but not all of the dead are students - altblurb proposed). Article has been updated to minimum standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think its ready. The articles main relevant section is just 2 paras long, which again can fit into the list of terrorit incidents page. Background can be found from a Boko Haram link. Don't see how this warrants a separate article. That said it is updated as required. So why not link this to the terrorist incidents page where the update requirement would still be met and we avoid a stub article once off ITN.? (that's isf we decide to post)Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This would presumably the appropriate incident list article. As you can see, it would not be appropriate to have even 2 paragraphs about this incident there, as it is a pure list. Around a dozen other suspected Boko Haram attacks have stand-alone pages, see Template:Campaignbox Nigerian Sharia conflict. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Nigeria is considered relatively stable compared to its neighbours but regardless of that, the event is significant enough to be posted on its own merits. After quickly skimming through the article, it appears sufficiently long enough to be posted. YuMaNuMa 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Far too high a death toll to ignore. Abductive (reasoning) 19:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Saddening event with significant loss of life. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Posted Altblurb. Spencer 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Lihaas (talk · give credit)

• Comment Probably should accept Chapman's proposal to marry, I'm not sure whether he can leave the Sheremetyevo airport since his passport has been revoked by the US (which is the reason why he's still in Sheremetyevo). Brandmeister 08:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's inevitable that ITN will revisit this story, but not now. If he actually pops up in Nicaragua or Venezuela or somewhere else, then probably. If he's extradited or captured (or has an "accident"), then certainly. But I don't think that the mere offer of asylum is a big enough development. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just there will be an endless stream of country who will offer asylum to Mr. Snowden. Donnie Park (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Traitors should not be on the frontpage of WP. Lugnuts 11:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Traitor is a matter of opinion(though I share it). 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep your personal politics out of this. It's irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to say that too. I apologize 331dot (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

For an encyclopaedia perhaps also a matter of facts. --ELEKHH 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; he's still got to get to either of those countries. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree that we need to wait, but getting to Nicaragua isn't that difficult, he can e.g. go to Vladivostok and board a cargo ship to Corinto. Count Iblis (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

He can't enter Russia without documents (his passport was revoked) and they won't give him asylum unless he shuts up(which he won't). 331dot (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Ortega can give him the necessary documents. Assange has all the documents that Snowden has, so Snowden doesn't have to say anything himself anymore. Also, Russa has said that should it be necessary for Snowden to be in the terrotory of a country first before he can apply for asylum there, that he can be brought to the embassy of that country by a diplomatic car of that country. The interior of the diplomatic car will then be considered as foreign territory. So, in principle, there is no problem for him to get asylum in e.g. Ecuador. The reason why this hasn't hapened is thus not due to the lack of documents, but due to US pressure. Therefore the fact that Nicaragua and Venezuela have come out supporting his bid for asylum is significant. But we have to see what happens next. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bongwarrior. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reconsider when something actually happens. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

support an amergency summit and several Latam leaders (half) have brought the issue up.(Lihaas (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

These latin leaders can offer anything they want- it is meaningless until he actually makes it there (which is by no means certain yet). 331dot (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose until he shows up someplace. Abductive (reasoning) 19:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose - I'm not seeing much ITN-worthiness here. What I see is a man who did his job for 27 years - of course he botched the occasional call and reffed some Finals games. That's what his job was, after all, and it's not really a profession that easily lends itself to being considered influential or important. People don't pay money to watch the referees. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ITND. What was the significant contribution this person made to the field of sport? Was the deceased "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"? It doesn't look like it to me. --RA (✍) 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading the article I don't see which criteria he meets. I don't see evidence he was notable as a referee(one controversy isn't enough) such as awards, entry in to the Hall of Fame, etc. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

support we don't really post refs here and he has hd a notable career.Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"We don't really post refs here" isn't a reason to post one. Why is his career notable? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't even see why he has an article, let alone be on the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You "don't even see why he has an article" - the same reason why we give articles to Pierluigi Collina and Howard Webb. Donnie Park (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• However notable Hollins is, the article isn't nearly good enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• edit
• history
• watch

• 2013 Egyptian coup d'état:
  • Islamist gunmen stage multiple attacks on security forces in the Sinai Peninsula with one soldier and five policemen reported dead. (Reuters)
  • The death toll from clashes between supporters and opponents of former President Mohammed Morsi rises to 52 with another 2,500 people injured, after over 30 people are reported dead after clashes. The Egyptian Army clashes with protesters supporting Morsi. (Egypt Independent)
  • The African Union has announced that it has suspended Egypt's membership. (CNN)
• Syrian civil war:
  • The Syrian opposition calls for immediate humanitarian aid to Homs after the Syrian army and Hezbollah step up their siege of the city with increased artillery shelling and incendiary bombs. (USA Today)
• Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal):
  • 15 people die in a suicide bomb attack targeting a Shia mosque in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. (BBC)

• An airstrike on anti-ship missiles in Latakia, Syria is carried out.(The Guardian)

• the Vatican declares Pope John Paul II and Pope John XXIII canonized as saints. (The Telegraph)

• Samsung Electronics announces its second quarter results, missing its forecasts and disappointing investors. (Reuters)
• The European Central Bank and the European Commission release a joint report on the banking system in Spain, indicating that system is solvent and will not require "further program disbursements." (Reuters)

• 39 people are injured due to malfunctioning fireworks at a 4th of July event in Simi Valley, California. (AP via SFGate) (FOX News)
• In three states—Wisconsin, Minnesota (where an elderly person's death was reported), and Illinois—in the United States, Whole Foods Market Inc. is recalling three types of the Crave Brothers (based in Waterloo, Wisconsin) Les Freres cheese, sold in 30 states and in Washington, D.C., due to concerns that it may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, which causes listeriosis, dangerous especially to the immunocompromised and pregnant women. (NBC)

• The People's Republic of China and Russia begin joint naval exercises in the Sea of Japan. (BBC)
• NSA spying scandal
  • Bolivian president Evo Morales calls the Eurozone for a violation of international law and threatens to close down the U.S. embassy in Bolivia after the episode of having his official airplane being refused to land en route to Vienna, amid suspicions of having former NSA employee Edward Snowden on board. Ambassadors of France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are summoned to give full explanations.(The Guardian)
  • Venezuela and Nicaragua offer Snowden asylum. (AP via USA today)

• A New Zealand court orders Pike River Coal to pay $3 million in compensation for the 29 victims of the Pike River Mine disaster. (ABC News Australian)

• Portuguese political crisis, 2013
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs Paulo Portas reportedly gives an ultimatum to the Prime Minister asking to exonerate the Minister of Finance Maria Luís Albuquerque in order to keep the first in the Government, as the President Cavaco Silva has demanded.
• The Portuguese Parliament votes down a motion to apologize to the Government of Bolivia for not allowing the plane carrying President Evo Morales to land and fly over Portuguese national airspace.
• Zimbabwe's top court rules that the general election should be held on July 31 despite an appeal by President Robert Mugabe and his main rival Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. (AFP via Sydney Morning Herald)

Egypt blurb update

The African Union has just suspended them. Pretty big development. can we add that to the blurb?Lihaas (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose not significant enough and a usual measure regarding the interruption of the constitutional rule.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Usual>? UIt doesn't happened everyday that a country is suspende.d That too of Egypts stature. Most significant int'l repercussionLihaas (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• See also Egypt update]]. Four things have happened: Protests, Morsi ousted in a coup, Mansour installed as interim leader and AU suspension. Ideally the four should be mentioned in the blurb, but the last is the least important if there isn't space. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Normally this would've posted. Orgs like AU usually suspends a member once a coup happens. We may leave out the earliest event of the four, but one can argue that it (the protests) is the most important. However, one can also argue that the anti-Morsi protests are no longer news so... –HTD 14:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. We should just leave the blurb be unless something absolutely enormous happens. Its a developing story with lots of things happening. The upper legislature has just been dissolved and the army have been shooting people dead for example. Out of context, there are probably ten ITN-worthy stories in Egypt today, but we can't incorporate the whole story into the blurb - that's what articles are for. Formerip (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Bernie Nolan

July 4