• edit
• history
• watch

• Boko Haram
  • 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
• War in Afghanistan
  • The International Security Assistance Force formally ends its combat mission. (Reuters)

• Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501
  • 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)
• Two merchant ships collide in rough seas off the Italian Adriatic coast, leaving at least one person dead and two missing. (Reuters via News24)
• Floods and mudslides in Sri Lanka kill at least twenty-four people and leave eight missing. (The Japan Times)
• An apartment building fire near San Antonio, Texas, USA, kills five people. (AP)

• The Croatian presidential election goes to a run-off between incumbent Ivo Josipović and challenger Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović. (Bloomberg)

Large expansion to Beijing Subway

• Nominated by Colipon (talk · give credit)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support 48 metro stations in a day. That needs to be mentioned in the blurb. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - when mentioned properly in the blurb.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose I love trains, but this is just not notable enough for ITN. Legaleagle86 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hasn't generated enough coverage to be on ITN. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

NATO ends ISAF

• Nominated by Jenda H. (talk · give credit)

• Conditional support Historical event, just one orange-tagged section needs fixing. Brandmeister 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support pending article improvements per Brandmeister. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support, the end of a war is truly of international significance. --AmaryllisGardener 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

• "President Obama Marks Formal End of War in Afghanistan" ; 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)

• Who takes his word seriously? George Ho (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support Clearly a big event with immense strategic implications. ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support One of the longest war coalitions in modern history officially drawing to a close. Mamyles (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, wait until orange-tagged missing references are resolved on both bolded articles. Mamyles (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per all above. This is modern history.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Jenda H., are you nominating one or both articles? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the ISAF article is more accurate. --Jenda H. (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Blurb two. Notable, very notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - important historical war ends. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no treaty, armistice or other relevant development, just an announcement. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The blurb doesn't imply any truce or ceasefire, it's just that ISAF has been a combatant in this war for 13 years and is now withdrawing. Brandmeister 20:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about the blurb, but about the non-story. The Taliban is strong and resurgent, with the recent attack on the Pakistani school, Posting this would be like posting a superbowl headline, in overtime, loosing team takes ball and goes home. Of course that would probably be more newsworthy than an "end" of operations in Afghanistan. There's also the fact that other than here I haven't even seen the headline. Then look at our end of operations in Iraq. This is a policy announcement, not an historical event. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Truly an international story. -- Calidum 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment a few dead links could be fixed up, but clear consensus to post and an impressive article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support An important historical event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Removing the ready tag; neither article appears to have been significantly updated, and the War in Afghanistan article has some very prominent fact tags. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

MS Norman Atlantic

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DetailMan2012 (talk · give credit) and Kiwipat (talk · give credit)

• Wait for more information. Hard to judge its worthiness without some details. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Latest is that one person died, ferry under tow to an Albanian port. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC News is reporting the rescue effort is complete, but 7 people have died. Bob talk 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated to 8 as per BBC News. Bob talk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages readers. After all, ITN included the Chilean miners. Bob talk 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support This is a well-edited article about an interesting (though admittedly not groundbreaking) recent event. Mamyles (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is receiving coverage in the US and seems noteworthy enough for someone to want to come here to check on it. Dismas| 18:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Minor news, no WP:LASTING historical or encyclopaedic impact. RGloucester — ☎ 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

I don't need a crystal ball. Ships sink. What else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ships sink. Of many kinds. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and unless the manner of sinking is significant, or the people onboard are significant, or the ship itself is significant, the sinking is not significant. None of those apply here. Fire breaks out on run-of-the-mill ferry in rough seas. Again, what else is new? RGloucester — ☎ 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I oppose posting it to ITN, but I think the article has merit. As I said, you are free to nominate it for deletion if you feel it does not merit an article. As Mjroots said it is far too early to know if LASTING applies here. Neither one of us knows. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you are talking about deletion. I never used the word "deletion". I merely took advantage of one of the event criteria, as a way of demonstrating my reasons for opposing posting it to ITN. It isn't too early at all. RGloucester — ☎ 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about deletion because WP:LASTING or any other notability issues are issues to be dealt with in a deletion discussion discussing the existence of the article. If a deletion discussion is open, that is certainly an issue here. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is very likely to survive an AfD nomination. Mjroots (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, no one even suggested an AfD nomination, so I don't understand why this is being discussed. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am saying you should suggest one as the proper venue for your views. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want the page deleted, so how is that my "view"? I merely don't want it posted to ITN. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You cited notability issues like WP:LASTING with this subject and said it had no "encyclopedic impact", which I presume means that you don't think it's notable enough for Misplaced Pages. If that is wrong, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"People die. What else is new"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I wouldn't exactly call this minor, but I understand the hesitation. It's not as significant as an airplane crash (which we normally post), but it's more significant than a bus crash (which we usually don't). Death toll in the (low) double-digits, plus a sizable and mostly successful rescue operation. I say post. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I say post. Per the sizable rescue efforts, media attention and still a few deaths.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's been very much in the news, and it's a sizable rescue operation. We've btw posted a similar story (burning ship in that area) a few years ago, though that rescue operation had greater success. Narayanese (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm boldly marking this as ready. I think that there is enough support to override the objectors (reasons, not quantity). The article itself is in a good shape. Needs an independent review and a decision. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Good. This should be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose — Although it's been a dramatic story, I have to agree with those who oppose this as lacking sufficient significance on the global scale of events. (Anyhow, it's all over but the shouting.) Sca (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, I think the death of two salvage workers, after all the surviving passengers had been rescued, increases the notability of this accident. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems like they carried a high number of illegal immigrants that are still uncounted for. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Posted. I agree that the support overcomes the opposition by strength of argument even if not numerical superiority. I note that several of the opposes were made while the story was still breaking, and that the story has—possibly against expectations—continued to develop since then, which appears to be the reason that the majority of the more recent comments are in support of posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Pull obviously no consensus, and 10 deaths in a ferry accident is rather small, considering their frequency and number of passengers. Very similar to the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment which was rightfully not posted. There's no indication of any log term effects beyond the deaths, like a criminal prosecution or bankruptcy. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

While I did post support of this above, I agree with Medeis that (in the future) it is preferable to wait for stronger consensus, even if that means a blurb does not get posted. Mamyles (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a full two days of discussion, story development, and article development. I marked the story as "ready" to give indicate that it eas time for a decision to be made. Consensus is not merely a !vote count. The strength of the arguments for and against posting should be taken in to account. The first comment was "Wait", I had no problem with that. Waiting was the correct thing to do in this case. We waited, the situation became clearer, the article made it to the MP. Had HJ Mitchell said the the article was not to be posted, then I would have accepted his decision without whining about it. Editors must realise that there are some you win, some you lose; and move on whichever way the result goes. Mjroots (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Post-posting Support, this seems like an event notable enough for ITN. --AmaryllisGardener 19:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Post-posting Support, reported all round the world and certainly notable enough for ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Post-posting support. Major story that has garnered international interest. There is no minimum death threshold for ITN postings. -- Calidum 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501

• Updated and nominated by Ktr101 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by OhanaUnited (talk · give credit)

• 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. --AmaryllisGardener 04:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment Moved page from AirAsia Flight 8501 to Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Updated blurb. OhanaUnited 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • Also, that's the origin airport (in Indonesia), not the destination airport. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support the alternative blurb. Article needs some working on. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support the alt blurb ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support the alternative blurb. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Posted - Thanks to everyone for the quick improvements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I presume this will be re-blurbed and bumped to the top when the plane is found. Hopefully this won't turn out to be another Flight 370 scenario. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Debris and a body have been sighted ; once confirmed as being from the plane this will need to be updated. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesia's search and rescue agency head has said they are 95% sure the debris is from the plane. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

. Think we should update the blurb to state that "Wreckage of the missing Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (pictured), carrying over 160 people, is found in the Java Sea in Indonesia." --MASEM (t) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that the blurb was updated today through a message on WP:ERRORS. Mamyles (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 27