Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Haze over Jam Gadang in Indonesia
Haze over Jam Gadang in Indonesia

view - page history - related changes - edit

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Suggestions[edit]

October 2[edit]

Current events of October 2, 2019 (2019-10-02) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch
International relations

October 1[edit]

Current events of October 1, 2019 (2019-10-01) (Tuesday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and enironment
  • Dutch farmers stage a protest in the Amsterdam area against proposals to halve livestock numbers in a bid to cut nitrogen emissions. Motoring group ANWB claims tractors on highways caused a total of 1,136km (700 miles) of traffic jams during morning rush hour, with tractors on one highway swerving back and forth to prevent traffic passing. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): CNN Guardian Nikkei, BBC

Nominator's comments: Protests are continuing on China's National Day. Someone has been shot by a live round, the first time since protests started (this will likely lead to even more protests). Police say protesters used "corrosive fluid". I have updated it but protests are still ongoing right now, so more may happen. starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Support per nom. I was just about to nominate it myself. This shouldn't have been removed from ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITN is not meant for sensationalised breaking news. STSC (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    A hardly unexpected vote, given this extremely recent finding that STSC fell short of WP:NPOV in China/Hong Kong-related edits, as well as their support for the China airport blurb. starship.paint (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm entitled to my opinion to vote just like anyone else and I've given my reason for that. I remind you just take part in the debate without any personal attack on others per WP:CIVILITY - STSC (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
China airport blurb Tells one all they need to know about this editor. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Jumping to conclusions, dear patriot? starship.paint (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I am a U.S. citizen, that hardly makes myself a "patriot", so do better. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, American and patriot aren't mutually exclusive. starship.paint (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
That is a load of gibberish. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"Corrosive fluid" and "Sprite" aren't mutually exclusive, either. One just sounds worse. Lemon juice, white vinegar and seawater can also bring a tear to a grizzled cop's eye, as well as season a trout. Everything is a weapon if it falls into the wrong hands. Go sulfuric or go home, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey2116. Banedon (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment and wait This was removed from Ongoing because it went nearly a week without significant updates. If editor interest is more sustained, it would be suitable to add it again. But, I would like to see it for a few days before supporting. "Protestors/police harmed during protest" is not terribly notable.130.233.2.252 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Made the headlines internationally today, and the article has been updated. feminist (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and wait to see what, if anything else, happens. Per the IP, protestors hurt during a protest is hardly news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - I supported taking down the article the first time as I though that there were no meaningful updates being made to it. But now, it seems like the protests are back in the news and the article is being regularly updated again. If this is not a one day thing (I know the protests are heating up because of China's National Day today) and the protests continue, then we should re-add. If the protests (and updating of the article) cool down after today, perhaps we could blurb it ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    As far as I know, the major protests are mostly conducted on weekends. Today was an exception. As such, we would expect most updates to come during or right after the weekends. starship.paint (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Today (1 October) is public holiday in Hong Kong if you still don't know. STSC (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing – as they're still going on – and seem likely to continue (sporadically?) for quite some time. A glaring embarrassment for China. (Reminds me a little of the pre-Wallfall demos in E. Germany – during which the regime realized it couldn't start shooting its own people inside the country.) – Sca (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait but generally Support - Today is special because of the HK holiday, and there are a lot more protesters out there which are raising the level of violence out of that. Let's see if that's sustained into tomorrow, but I also don't see a problem adding it back (I was weakly opposed to the remove only that events had slowed down but the protests were still ongoing). --Masem (t) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This is ongoing and major world news. I am surprised to find that it has even been removed... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Offensichtlich, some people just don't like Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. And, having read The Guardian update above, hysterical news reports seem to be unclear whether the protestor rioter was armed/charging at police, whether a sole officer overstepped protocol, or whether this actually reflects a broader policy shift on the part of HKPF. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The rioter kept charging at the officer with a metal tube; the officer just shot him in self defence. STSC (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing but I'd support a blurb. Seriously what is the rush to put things in ongoing? Blurb it, if it's still ongoing when the blurb is about to expire off, put it in the OG box. Seriously.... --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
One person shot "by a live round" but not killed is not a blurb. (PS: "Shot by a live round" (BBC) doesn't make sense. 'Rounds' don't shoot, guns do.) – Sca (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The (at least) weekly protests/demonstrations/riot/fight for freedom/terrorist attacks (pick your favourite) have been ongoing since June. How much "still ongoing" do you want it to be? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hold up Police seem to have a hunch some Molotovs are scheduled to fly today. Zero shot to one shot is not a dramatic eruption nor chaotic escalation. A bunch of people or government buildings literally catching fire would be both. Wait till midnight. If nothing beats a rowdy shot teen by then, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
    Given the history of Hong Kong, a protestor getting shot by the police is a signficant escalation. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This was posted to ongoing until only four days ago. My question to those voting, if that hadn't happen and this was a proposal to remove, would your vote still be the same (support<->opp rmv, oppose<->supp rmv)? If not, why not? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Just to clarify things: ITN is not meant to be a newsticker. The only reason ITN exists is to highlight quality Wikipedia writing about current events. At the time the Hong Kong Protests article was removed from ongoing, it was no longer current. It did not, still does not, and never will have anything to do with whether or not other sources, such as news organizations, are reporting on this. It only has to do with whether or not the Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with that information. If you all had wanted to keep this in ongoing, you all would have been updating it along the way. At this point, I'm fine with returning it there, but is everyone going to just abandon it again and let it go out-of-date? Because if so, what's the point? --Jayron32 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed there will be lack of interest in the article in a few days time, believe me. That's why it was taken off 'ongoing' in the first place. STSC (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
If and when the article no longer meets the criteria to be listed as ongoing, it can and will be removed. That's not a reason to decide not to list it as such when it does meet the criteria, and it's quite fallacious to think it is. The "why bother" mentality with that comment is just as lethargic as the editors you suspect will fail to keep the article updated for very long.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Davey and per Sca. The article is updated, the topic is in the news, the situation has re-intensified, and ongoing is more appropriate than a blurb.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm looking at the Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section instructions and I'm not seeing where it says "Stories which would not qualify for a blurb can be stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" -- lets keep that in mind when evaluating consensus on this item. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Rainbow trout transparent.png – Sca (talk)
LaserLegs, The purpose of ongoing (according to Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section) is "to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news" and the criteria is that it the article is being continuously updated with new information. More relevant here is that "Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." When assessing whether or not this proposal meets the criteria, rather than keeping in mind what WP:ITN does not say, let's keep in mind what it does say.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
So it does say that. I would appreciate being corrected without the snark, but I thank you nonetheless. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I've no intention of being snarky here, but perhaps it came off that way because the original post of our back-and-forth here (the suggestion that we believe that stories which don't qualify ought to be "stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" and that this is somehow a rebuttal to the rationale of the support !votes) struck me as being a less-than-respectable comment. If I'm not mistaken (and I sincerely apologize in advance if I'm having a false memory), you've in the past suggested that it should be a requirement that editors know how long any story will stay in ongoing before putting it there, and you seem to be reiterating that belief here. Nobody has a crystal ball. We don't know when the article will or will not go out of shape, we don't know when the story will or will not cease to be in the news. Of course the amount of time that this story will remain on ITN is indeterminate, and there's no problem with that. We'll cross the bridge of removal when we get to it.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - This is definitely for Ongoing now. Situation has intesified etc.BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – I !voted to remove and I stand by that but we should not hesitate to add it back. It appears this is not over and is certainly in the news. The first injury from a live round may not warrant a blurb but certainly establishes the situation is ongoing. Sometimes we do not wait long enough before removing an item. That is a fact of life. News is unpredictable. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Supports outweigh opposes 3:2. Timely. – Sca (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm going to add this because we have a rough consensus. Should the balance of opinion shift substantially against this, it can be removed. Jehochman Talk 01:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Jehochman, please remove the "2019". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    Jehochman, sorry but can you revert your most recent edit. Stephen had already fixed the issue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Current events of September 30, 2019 (2019-09-30) (Monday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology
  • Scientists say the largest iceberg in 50 years has broken away from Antarctica's Amery Ice Shelf. The 1,636 sq km iceberg, known as D28, will continue to be monitored as it could pose a risk to shipping. (BBC)
  • A near-record snowstorm drops large amounts of snow in some parts of Alberta, from September 27-30. 95 cm fell in Waterton, 50-60 cm fell in Lethbridge, and over 27-32 cm fell in Calgary. Impacts were relatively mild, with power outages, and businesses closing. (The Globe and Mail)

RD: Jessye Norman[edit]

Article: Jessye Norman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Roles and parts sections need more refs (not sure what the standard is here for classical musicians). Looks good to me otherwise. Funcrunch (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I moved the discography to a separate article, and kept only roles and parts with a reference. I need to go, with minor sentences still without ref. Do me a favour and comment them out. She was one of the great voices of a century, and not to mention her name would not be understood by readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Considering the shit storm that gets created when one comments them out, it was very clever of you Gerda, to steer clear of the controversy Face-smile.svg--DBigXrayᗙ 10:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support a couple of claims unreferenced in the main body but mostly satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Not a bad article at all, I think it looks good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The entire Voice type section is CN, and an uncomfortable amount of the prose throughout the article is sourced from musicianguide.com, itself published by deadlink company netindustries.us. Surely there's obits to pull this info from?130.233.2.252 (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your assessment, but in any case, I’m sure that citing the nytimes articles/reviews that this source refers to would suffice. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support there are a few unsourced claims but otherwise this can suffice. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A few questionable sources here or there, but on the balance, this is well referenced and well written. --Jayron32 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: a German radio station changed their evening program, Norman Norman Norman in recordings and interviews. Can we get this moving please? She'd deserve a blurb easily but a mention soon would be at least something. Sang at the inauguration of U.S. presidents Reagan and Clinton, and Olympic Games, - that's a name many know, not only people interested in opera and classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC) More: I bet that this NYT obituary ("Jessye Norman obituary / Headstrong opera "diva" who faced down racism and became one of the world’s most celebrated singers") has more to offer, but don't have access. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC) More: the "unreliable" source went to the external links, could be replaced by better refs (but seems rather reliable, all facts could be found elsewhere). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal September 2019 climate strikes[edit]

Article: September 2019 climate strikes (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: According to the article these "strikes" ended three days ago. The article is of "meh" quality I'm sure there is something in the WP:MOS about having 96 sections many of which with simple one sentence updates. LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Since I was opposed to putting this as Ongoing in the first place. Thank you for properly creating a motion to remove ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The strikes across the two weekends were the key event. While there will continue to be strikes on Friday, there will be nothing of the scale in terms of the organization that these two weekends had (at least, as currently planned). It didn't make sense to make that ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support has been ready to go for a few days. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely not "ongoing".  Nixinova  T  C  22:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Umm... what purpose does this section serve that the one below about replacing this article doesn't? — Bilorv (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
You may consider to nominate the "school strike" as a blurb, not as ongoing event. STSC (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think there was an interest in differentiating the act of removing the September article from the act of adding the general climate strike article. With the nomination below, both were sort of being lumped together, so once could not clearly vote to remove the September article but not to add the general climate strike article to Ongoing. By doing this, we could separate the two actions ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@STSC: The most recent event to blurb comes from the September 20–27 strikes, which has the more specific article September 2019 climate strikes, which I started this whole thing by nominating for a blurb, which was rejected with consensus to instead add something to ongoing. — Bilorv (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. Discussion below remains open regarding the addition of the Ongoing replacement article. SpencerT•C 01:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Beijing Daxing Airport[edit]

Too many Daxing nominations, none of them are getting anywhere near a consensus to post. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Proposed image
Article: Beijing Daxing International Airport (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Beijing Daxing Airport opens for operation.
News source(s): [1] CNN; SCMP

Article updated
Nominator's comments: There is no need for superlatives. A large airport – one of the largest in fact – was indeed "In The News" so there is no need for further justification, or what type of records it broke. We have an obsession with superlatives, records, and "firsts" on ITN that imho lends those items undue weight. The article is good; well referenced. I suggest we post with a simple one liner. Colipon+(Talk) 19:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless we open an airport on the moon, I don't think such an event is ITN-worthy. We didn't report on Istanbul's new airport opening, how is this different? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again, superlative events rarely make for good ITN, unless they already fall into ITNR like space probes/etc. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure why you made this point, because I specifically stated above that an event does not need to be superlative to be on ITN. Infrastructure is under-represented on ITN, and this specific piece of infrastructure was a headline on many global news sites (not top headline, but headline nonetheless), so I am nominating on the basis of "article quality" and the fact that it was "in the news". If someone nominated Istanbul Airport, or Berlin Brandenburg, I would have voted "yes". Sometimes it seems like ITN is just an ongoing ticker of disasters and attacks. Colipon+(Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
      • If there's no importance beyond another international airport opening (of which there are over 1,200), then this is definitely not ITN, as openings of routine buildings/etc. aren't appropriate. --Masem (t) 20:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: You should have just added your blurb as another alternative blurb to the (5.3) nomination below instead of this new nomination. STSC (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I decided not to do that because it's hard to determined which "support" and "Opposes" are for which request. Colipon+(Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
They would say which blurb they support / oppose in their response. STSC (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
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.

Beijing Nanyuan Airport[edit]

Proposed image
Articles: Beijing Nanyuan Airport (talk, history) and Beijing Daxing Airport (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Beijing Nanyuan Airport, one of the three operational airports opened before 1910s in the world, closes after the opening of the Daxing Airport.
Alternative blurb: ​Beijing Daxing International Airport officially opens with the world's largest terminal.
Alternative blurb II: ​Zaha Hadid Architects’ Beijing Daxing International Airport with the world’s largest terminal opens in Beijing.
Alternative blurb III: ​Beijing Daxing International Airport opens for operation.
News source(s): [2] CNN; SCMP Fortune Business Inside Design Boom - digital architecture magazine

Both articles updated

 146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hold up That "before 1910s" link says this airport opened in August 1910. The 192nd decade CE was still a few moons away, but most people are somewhat married to the idea that 1970 was "in the seventies" (and so on). Plus, you're missing sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:44, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you! Source added. I don't know how to describe it better. Airport#History_and_development listed three airports with runways or equivalents before December 31, 1909. Maybe "one of three earliest airports" would work? --146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    "China's oldest airport" packs a fair amount of punch, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:08, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not suitable for ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, could you please tell in detail (which criteria does not meet)? --146.96.147.137 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    It's not particularly newsworthy, it has little encyclopedic value and I'm certain that the vast majority of our readers will not be looking for this story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN. Support DYK. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As interesting as I personally find it, I do not think this is particularly ITN-worthy (on notability). If only the whole world were av geeks... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Slight Support I didn't think I was into historic airports before this entered my bubble, and now I'm not so sure. Maybe this is a gateway into the wider world of harbours, train stations and wherever escalators wind up. Maybe there are others just afraid they wouldn't care, who could use a friendly shove. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting but ITN is generally not best for "superlative" events like this. --Masem (t) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Meh. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (alternative blurb) - It's better we just concentrate on the new Daxing Airport itself with a blurb like this:
"A new airport with the world’s largest terminal, Beijing Daxing International Airport, officially opens in Beijing." CNN; SCMP - STSC (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support STSC's alternative blurb That Nanyuan would close upon the opening of Daxing was forecast long ago. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose RIP, but not particularly newsworthy. Neutral on alternative blurb, this whole thing seems a bit crufty, but world's largest airport is of broader interest. Oppose all airportery. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb as proposed by STSC I've come to my senses ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "World's largest terminal" is based on a very questionable interpretation of "largest" used by CCP press releases and repeated without checking by a handful of lazy journalists. The terminal building has the largest footprint, but that's because it's a low-rise structure; in terms of actual floor space, it's considerably smaller than Dubai International Terminal 3 or the main terminal of Istanbul Airport, and roughly the same size as the existing main terminal of Beijing Capital International Airport. ("Largest terminal" is a largely meaningless title, as very few large airports operate a single-terminal model.) ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Many reliable sources say so; Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not original research. STSC (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
You think it's original research to say that 1,000,000 m2 is smaller than 1,700,000 m2? That a lazy journalist has repeated PR puffery without bothering to fact-check for themselves, doesn't mean Wikipedia repeats it; we abandoned the principle of WP:Verifiability not truth a decade ago. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Please show us your sources to support your argument. STSC (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb, it's certainly suitable for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 3 assuming my own nomination above is closed procedurally. Same arguments as above. I don't care if it's the largest or second largest and in any case don't support something based on some superlative claim. But I don't think one can doubt that there's only maybe a handful of infrastructure projects of this size in a decade, and this in one of the top air travel hubs in the world as measured by passenger traffic. Anyway the support or oppose votes are mostly a matter of personal preference it appears as there are no contentions based on article quality, merely subjective judgments of importance, which admittedly might simply come down to a numbers game. We need to think about systemic bias here, not just geographical, but also topical. My own argument is that The Guardian, New York Times, and Reuters all reported on this so it is undoubtedly "In the News" - if that counts for anything - and this is only counting "western" sources of information. On Chinese-language sources this was the top headline on several news portals. I oppose posting Nanyuan on its own or mentioning Nanyuan at all. Colipon+(Talk) 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose alt blurb 3 so what? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
So, it's significant global news. STSC (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a big airport terminal opening, so it's nothing to do with "significant global news"! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Fortune claims it's the world's largest airport.[3] That is quite significant. STSC (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
For what feels like the fifth time, you can present as many sources as you like regurgitating that press release, but it won't make it true. Even one terminal at Dubai Airport, let alone the whole of Dubai Airport, is larger than Daxing. It's not original research to point out that by their own figures, this airport is half the size of (e.g.) Istanbul. ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Some of the sources are professional journals, they're not tabloids. You'll have to supply the sources that support your fringe theory. STSC (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not an "airport terminal building" only - it is actually a totally new airport, along with several accompanying rail lines, one of which is high-speed. Not to mention various "technology" firsts like use of facial recognition for boarding etc. FWIW, on Chinese WP, which is actually mostly staffed by people from Hong Kong and Taiwan, this was posted without contention - the five stories on there right now are SE Asia Haze, Jacques Chirac, Kashmir earthquake, and Thomas Cook bankruptcy. Colipon+(Talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, how lovely, if I ever happen to fly to or from this airport I'll be sure to look out for those rail lines and technological marvels. That doesn't mean it's a newsworthy story to slap on to the main page of our encyclopedia though. Oppose.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Really not sure why a snarky remark is needed there. Colipon+(Talk) 00:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not that it would even be ITN if it was the world's largest terminal, but it isn't, so it's run-of-the-mill news. Also, per STSC's arguments, this. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What is your point of raising that rancorous discussion in an innocuous venue such as ITN? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see why the opening of a record-breaking airport would not be postable, but this particular opening is being overshadowed in coverage. Searching for China for example returns lots of results, but they all deal with the anniversary celebrations and not this airport. Banedon (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A new big building for planes to take off and land at -- it doesn't exactly scream newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk)
  • Oppose anything relating to the new airport, neutral on the closure of the old airport considering its age. feminist (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Viju Khote[edit]

Article: Viju Khote (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): India Today

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am doing this right, nominating for recent deaths: Veteran actor Viju Khote died on 6:55am IST (1:25am UTC), 30th September ref. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I've fixed it up for you. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article needs expanding. The only coverage on the article is the lead which talks about a few appearances he has made and a brief personal life section. Filmography section unsourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment a veteran actor, immortalized by Sholay. The article needs expansion to cover his life and career. Sourcing needs lot of work as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too short article on own life. Rest is un-referenced filmography. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Current events of September 29, 2019 (2019-09-29) (Sunday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections

Sports

2019 UCI Road World Championships[edit]

Article: 2019 UCI Road World Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the UCI Road World Championships, Mads Pedersen of Denmark wins the men's road race and Annemiek van Vleuten of the Netherlands wins the women's road race
News source(s): [4][5]

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: ITNR and annual event but apparently hasn't been listed since 2011. Could use more prose and update. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment What is there is good, and references are in order, but a prose summary of the results is needed.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is weak but good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose summary is very weak indeed, much more needed to cover this multi-day event. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article will surely improve by the time we have a consensus here, and if not, article is viable as of now. Aviartm (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Too many unsourced claims about living people. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Current events of September 28, 2019 (2019-09-28) (Saturday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • Flooding in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh kills at least 93 people and displaces thousands of others. Another 29 people were killed in Bihar. (BBC).
  • An oil tanker ship explodes in Ulsan, South Korea, with flames subsequently spreading to an adjacent second tanker. At least ten people are injured. (CBC)
  • A coach with a flat tyre swerves into oncoming traffic and strikes a lorry head-on in Jiangsu, China. The collision kills at least 36 and injures another 36. (The Guardian)
International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: José José[edit]

Article: José José (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Highly popular Mexican singer. A bit more sourcing needed. EternalNomad (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment
I'm working on the article when I have the chance. I have work today so I'll help out with the changes. Erick (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing replacement: School strike for the climate[edit]

Given that the September strikes have been removed as they are not ongoing, there is no longer a case to swap in this article, and there is no consensus to add it as an addition to ongoing in its own right. Stephen 06:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
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: School strike for the climate (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
Nominator's comments: Trying this again after a confusing discussion of September 2019 climate strikes yesterday. I believe consensus was established for the inclusion of School strike for the climate to "ongoing", but this was a bit ambiguous, and instead September 2019 climate strikes was added to "ongoing" after it had already finished. So let's make this clear: the proposal is to replace September 2019 climate strikes with School strike for the climate in "ongoing", as the former has already finished and the latter is the movement with which the former is associated, a movement in which protests and strikes of thousands of people are occurring across the globe each Friday. Pinging those who partook in the previous discussion (apologies to drag you all back, but we need a consensus): Mike gigs, Amakuru, Masem, Jayron32, STSC, MSN12102001. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something that happens one day a week inherently stops for most of the month, doesn't go on. Of course, September 2019 is done forever soon. So if I have to choose, I support this new way. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
    • Of course, September 2019 is done forever soon. — I'm gonna use your comment to (for the umpteenth time) make a point that I actually can't believe people don't understand, because it's 30 seconds of reading the article: the September 2019 climate strikes did not take place from September 1 to September 30. They took place from September 20 to September 27. As I said above, the event is already over. — Bilorv (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    Aye, those protests are already done, thought you made it pretty clear. The month itself has almost passed as well, that's all I meant to add. Again, these are both bad examples of supposedly ongoing movements, but your suggestion beats the current version on the extremely simple and obvious level; I'm only "opposing" the idea of replacing the plainly poor choice with anything so predictably infrequent as what are essentially just sociology field trips (at least so far). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - If the event continues beyond this September and is frequently updated, then I'm OK with it in "ongoing". STSC (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I opposed the September article as ongoing for this reason but I would definitely be open to putting School strike for climate on Ongoing as long as it’s updated regularly and the strikes occur at least semi-regularly (actually staying “in the news”), per STSC. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 23:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support speedy removal of the Sept 2019 climate strikes; neutral on the addition of this other article.  Nixinova  T  C  06:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. I've checked CNN, NY Times, Le Monde (They even had a Planète section), BBC and Der Speigel and did not find this mentioned on any of their front pages. This is manifestly NOT in the news.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    You're looking for it right at the midpoint between protests; were this the most recent Friday, it would have been all over all of those websites (at least, I can personally recall seeing CNN, BBC and Le Monde stories on Friday). Even so, it's still getting plenty of coverage: try the Montreal Gazette, La Repubblica, The New Zealand Herald, Stuff.co.nz etc. (as of time of writing, of course). You picked four countries whose strikes were the Friday before last rather than the most recent Friday. Even so, it's still on the front page of The Guardian's website. ITN is about events in the news worldwide, not just the newspapers in languages you speak. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely, you are not accusing me of provincialism on EN.Wikipedia when I'm trawling through Spanish, French and German media trying to find links to your nom? Right after telling me that your Ongoing nomination is not actually on-going, but rather a sporadic event that happens every couple of Fridays, or something? My oppose can't but grow stronger.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not seeing this reported in my mainstream news reports. There was certainly a spike a while back when kids even skived off school to protest, but nothing for me in the meantime, so this is certainly not an ongoing issue for me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Attention Needed - While there seems to be no consensus yet for putting school strike for climate as Ongoing, there seems to be unanimous support for removing September 2019 climate strikes from Ongoing. Just felt that that needed to be pointed out as we essentially are debating two different actions here ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The way I see it, the previous discussion closed with consensus to add a climate strike-related article to "ongoing", and this discussion was designed to decide whether that article should be September 2019 climate strikes or School strike for the climate. This discussion has consensus that it shouldn't be the former (the only sensible outcome) and has not generated an opposing consensus strong enough to overturn the previous discussion, because you shouldn't relitigate a decision two days afterwards. Well, both discussions have been a bit of mess and that's undoubtedly my fault, but I am yet to work out what exactly the best course of action was. I don't envy the closing admin here but I think we're agreed that action needs to be taken now. — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Admin note: Current article has been removed; discussion is still open for School strike for the climate to be added to Ongoing. SpencerT•C 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
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.

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit[edit]

PROPOSAL FAILS
There is no consensus to remove it from Ongoing at this time. --Jayron32 12:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
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: Brexit (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal
Nominator's comments: BoJo got a beatdown in SCOTUK (which we blurbed). If he resigns, we'll blurb. If Brexit is delayed we'll blurb. If the UK crashes out we'll certainly blurb. The only thing ongoing right now is BoJo screaming at his detractors and press speculation about Corbyn. I 100% endorse a blurb for any major update in this story, but I don't see why this is in "ongoing" LaserLegs (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There are no more updates to the article, and there is no recent news of worldwide importance and impact. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This seems premature. WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh I think the removal and re-addition will suck up a lot of volunteer time at ITNC. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Brexit is, by definition, "ongoing" until it either happens, or gets cancelled, in which case the 2019 Brexit riots article will be posted. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Regardless what happens with Johnson, the event is still going on , and widely covered. With it to come to a head soon, it doesn't make sense to pull until we have a conclusive result to post as a story. (Same boat now as the impeachment piece). --Masem (t) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • "Soon" is a month away. At least two weeks till the EU summit and the extension (or lack thereof) is two weeks after that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: it is indeed ongoing by definition, but so is Time and we don't have that featured. Brexit clogging up the ongoing section of ITN for indefinitely long—at least another month and possibly another year or longer, then replaced with Post-Brexit trade agreements for another decade—is complete UK-centrism. If major Brexit-related events happen that affect EU countries or trading relations with other countries then we can post them then. — Bilorv (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If just because I'm fed up with seeing it. And nothing independently notable has happened for Brexit recently (prorogation another matter) to justify having it hang around forever. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Actually the Brexit has not yet happened. Why is it in ongoing? Unless just rename it to "Negotiation of Brexit" in the ongoing section. STSC (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal, certainly without prejudice to any further blurbs that will be needed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose / wait per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously, we have more to come in the next week or two, and the article is being updated so there's no reason to remove this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Sincerely this looks to be never ending. Keeping it based on the current here and there stories, it would surely be on the template for the next several months if not years. I also agree with Bilorv, it's indeed ongoing the same way as time is. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Per others -- BoothSift 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Really? Brexit is probably the example par excellence for why we have ongoing. It is a never ending source of drama surrounding an anticipated major event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Hardly a day goes by without it being in the news in some fashion. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's ongoing. Enough already. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man:, Lol, you've already said so, just four persons above, If I am not mistaken. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    And I'll say it a third time later on. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    Respectfully TRM one !vote is enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe for you mere mortals. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Are you joking? We're just coming to the interesting bit! Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    • No, it was a serious nomination. If we're going to blurb the major developments (and we should) there is no reason for it to be in ongoing. What, is BoJo going to paint a bigger lie on a bigger bus from a bankrupt manufacturer and tour around screaming "surrender" at his opponents? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
      • No, seriously, you surely know that removing it now would inevitably result in it being restored due to the political chaos that is inevitably going to ensue during October. Not all of those issues are going to deserve a blurb (although some might, especially if Johnson tries to ignore the Benn Bill or use Emergency Powers), but a lot of them are going to be big news. We're a month from 31 October; we don't need to have the discussion all over again when something triggers it off. Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal Kind of cooled down for the time being - but I would recommend making a commented out filled in nomination somewhere in this page because it is going to flare up again like acne in a couple weeks tops. Juxlos (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it's kind of cooled down because it's the weekend. It'll ramp up again tomorrow, don't worry. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal from ongoing, per what Black Kite says above. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this has been in the news and is going to be in the news even more in the upcoming month. Banedon (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Brexit itself is huge news, but the vote was 3 years ago. The specifics of the departure are surely important, but not so much to leave it on the front page indefinitely. Check out the timeline - outside of the prorogation ruling (for which I supported a blurb), the only news in the last three weeks is...another court action will start? To discuss not creating a delay? GreatCaesarsGhost 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Brexit is definitely not over. Should be placed in Ongoing now more than ever.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep It's in the news, the article is being actively updated. I sympathize that this is dragging on forever, but having an Ongoing entry for this is a great catch-all for every little twist in this story. I fear that if this is removed then we'll have 2 noms/week trying to blurb this or that new development, where the noms on their own only have currency within the larger Brexit drama. This is, I think, what Ongoing is for.130.233.2.252 (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this doesn't qualify for Ongoing, I'm not sure what does... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
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.

2019 Pune flood[edit]

Article: 2019 Pune flood (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Flooding and other rain-related incidents kill 21 people in the Pune division of India.
News source(s): [6], Weather Channel

Article updated

  Harshil want to talk? 14:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Noting that this is not just flooding but things like walls, weakened by rain, collapsing and killing people. --Masem (t) 14:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable enough. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "4,74,226 people" is not 4 million, it is probably a typo and should read " 474,226", which is clearly different from 4 million albeit still a lot. Also, the source cited dates 14 August 2019, so this might be about a different event. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah : to be sure, there was flooding in Pune this week, no question, but I think there's a mixup in this even and the other. I can't confirm 48 yet (but at least 21). --Masem (t) 15:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I took out the questionable blurbs (no offense to Hashil169, but there's definitely some english problems in the article, that might be the source of confusion) --Masem (t) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not a typo (or four million). —Cryptic 00:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; undoubtedly notable, but the article doesn't really establish this. Take as support upon article improvement. Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no impact section. 21 deaths from "rain-related incidents" - how many from direct flooding? Where? Also needs the usual ESL copyedit. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, some of these were direct from the flood (washed away, etc.). Other caess were people trying to escape from flash flooding in buildings which then collapsed on them in that flooding, and died. That's all direct deaths from the flooding. --Masem (t) 18:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Directly quoting the article lead here "In addition to people lost to these floods, other rain-related incidents such as collapsed buildings have killed at least 21 people.". Make it make sense. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing any real coverage that would make it into an almanac of the year's events for an encyclopedia, and the article is poor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Current events of September 27, 2019 (2019-09-27) (Friday)
edithistorywatch
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Joseph C. Wilson[edit]

Article: Joseph C. Wilson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American ambassador. C class article with good sourcing. Need volunteers. DBigXrayᗙ 09:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose for now, still quite a bit of uncited material. Sam Walton (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment not terrible. Refs in the early life section need to be cleaned up, and the awards section needs refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Edwards (American politician)[edit]

Article: Jack Edwards (American politician) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Fox

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 10 times Senater. Article with good sourcing but needs expansion now excellent sourcing as well as expanded. DBigXrayᗙ 09:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – Thin, documentation lacking. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Sca thanks for the review. I have expanded the article and the sourcing. Please review again.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Rob Garrison[edit]

Article: Rob Garrison (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, Rolling Stone, USA Today,Variety, Vulture

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Played Tommy in the Karate Kid Villain. Article with excellent sourcing but needs expansion. and now expanded. DBigXrayᗙ 08:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Wasn't the "villain" in TKK, he merely had a barely memorable line; and he was in only one episode of its web series 30 years later. His other film and TV credits are unmentionable. — Wyliepedia @ 09:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I stand corrected. Can you talk about the article quality. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It's marked as a stub, which I believe is frowned upon at ITN; and the article wasn't created until his death and only significantly covers his TKK quote and his recurrence with the franchise (minor roles in two films and one spinoff episode). If any of those pass ITN standards, I'll move on, but my "oppose" remains for exclusion, due to his less-than-stellar career. — Wyliepedia @ 12:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned in the template above, the discussion for ITN RD should focus only on article quality. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 Working Both of us are working to address the size concerns. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed I have expanded the article to C class. It is well sourced. Should be ready to post. The Rambling Man and Sca please review and revisit your oppose !votes -DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
marked as ready--DBigXrayᗙ 17:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing/blurb: 2019 World Athletics Championships[edit]

Article: 2019 World Athletics Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2019 World Athletics Championships starts in Doha, Qatar.
News source(s): [7]

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: World championship for 10 days. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now due to lack of references in some sections and due to there being a ton of links to nonexistent Wiki pages. I might be open to changing my vote if a few more citations are added. I'll look into finding some, but I have a few doubts on notability of this event as an ongoing item ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Conclusion is already ITN/R. We expanded FIFA WC to ongoing per logical application of IAR, and WWC per logical fairness. Cricket was the "slippery slope" moment. Are we going to add the MLB playoffs as well? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    No, because that baseball competition is local. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    This is a sports event that includes almost every country in the world. Do not ever compare it to cricket or MLB which do not have the same global status.BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    Uh, cricket has HUGE global status. Maybe not on North American, but it is a sport propagated globally particularly in any state touched by the UK Commonwealth (eg UK, India, Australia). That said, I would be concerned that it doesn't have the scale of FIFA or the Olympics to require Ongoing, and same here with this event (as mostly track and field events, and not the spectrum of the Olympic events). --Masem (t) 18:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    In Canada, it has dual status as a culturally important sport and one rarely played or watched. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, September 27, 2019 (UTC)
    Except when we're winning the world series back to back! --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, even I got sucked into Blue Jay fever as a kid. Peer pressure, mainly. But today I hazily recall our checkered romance with the old cricket bat. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, September 28, 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the conclusion of the championships and if someone has written some prose it will go up as a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole "opening ceremony" or "ongoing" thing for athletics events has really only ever been used for the Olympics and the World Cup in the past, and I'm not really in favor of expanding it to other events. If, and when, we have a final results to report and if, and when, we have a properly updated article with a significant prose summary of the event, and a blurb summarizing the important results thereof, I will read the article and assess it. Not now, however. --Jayron32 18:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ongoing as this does not have the stature of the Olympics. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on technical grounds. For the love of everything sacred, this is ITNR so the "result" (whatever that means for a global athletics competition about whom no-one cares!) is what we post. There's no real chance of ongoing (although I love this parochial attempts to bring "baseball" into everything: hint [no-one outside America gives a shit!]). We all love cricket (yes, we do), but the thing is, and this is the point: what is going to be updated here that is anything other than a result of race or a competition? If we had (and it would be great) a synopsis of each contest, and a semifinal/final prose report on every single one of them, being updated as it happened, I'd be 100% (no, 110%) in favour of ongoing. But, it's not gonna happen. Is it? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    Like rock music, hot dogs, pro wrestling, sex in advertising, giant movie monsters, gambling devices and democracy, baseball in Japan went 110% (nay, threefold) with the whole "keeping it interesting" deal. But no. No nation on Earth will ever award a prize for Outstanding Long Jump Reporter. "Jumper jumps a certain length, next jumper jumps a greater/lesser length, etc." It's the same boring repetitive crap, year after year. Same goes across the track and down the field. Even the injuries are predictable strains and tears, only the major muscle groups change as appropriate. No drama, no aphorism, just table data. Strategy is the exact same every time, so don't bother pulling pre-game quotes or explaining significant coaching shakeups. Never going to happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  • I brought up baseball as an absurdity; a further slip down that slippery slope. But spare us the "parochial" disparagements while you push the myth that the old Empire still cares about the games you forced on them and reject as fake news the pageviews that show the World Series (and the oh-so-parochial College Football Playoff) obliterating [8] the Ashes and Boat Race. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    How fucking rude! I didn't force any game on anyone. And .... wait for it.... BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!! You fell for it!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    And please point me to the criterion at ITN where spiking pageviews counts? Your graph is brilliant (well done you!) but adequately demonstrates that there's more general interest in the Ashes than your baseball and college fun! Try harder next time! *****BOAT RACE KLAXON!!!!!*****
    Hee hee, someone took the bait you offered, chewed on it a bit, and then became very angry. How funny. Also, that graph takes on a very different complexion if you add in 2019 Cricket World Cup (which presumably is the logical equivalent of the baseball "world series"?!)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yep, don't say that out loud, the heinous IMPERIAL FORCES who enslaved their empire to play nothing other than "CRICKET" still gets quite a viewership worldwide (like the canoe up your Thames) as opposed to the parochial college football and MLB debacles! VIVE LA REVOLUTION!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the nom puts the horse before the cart. We'll have to mule this over at a later date.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted Ongoing) Climate strikes[edit]

Proposed image
Article: September 2019 climate strikes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new wave of climate strikes (strike in Wellington pictured) take place worldwide.
Alternative blurb: ​A second day of worldwide climate strikes (strike in Wellington pictured) draws millions.
News source(s): [9] [10] [11] [12] etc.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The strikes were featured on ITN on 20 September, which ended up with a rough turnout of 4 million people. Today there is another equally significant wave of 2,400 protests which have already gathered 1 million in Italy and 170,000 in New Zealand, and school has been cancelled for 110,000 in Canada, where Thunberg plans to speak. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for two main reasons: 1) It's very difficult to tell in the article what updates have been made describing events that took place today vs. events that took place this time last week. Many of the subsections in the Actions by Country section do not even have an associated date, so it's hard to tell if those actions are new news that were updated for 27 September. I fear that, due to the size of this section, it will be hard to fix this. 2) I'm questioning the significance of this week's events compared to last week's. There's not much that's majorly different from what happened last week, and the blurb just links to the same article, so the news becomes rather less notable. Perhaps this should have been put in Ongoing for this week, but as the article is about September Climate Strikes, which are wrapping up, it seems a little late to do this now. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Follow the associated sources. The main countries striking today include Italy, New Zealand, Canada, India, Sweden, the Netherlands and Argentina. The strikes are not "wrapping up" but have been focused around 2 days, September 20 and September 27, making this the second of two of the largest strikes in human history, rather than an event that's been taking part throughout September and is petering out. As for the "significance of this week's events compared to last week's", I repeat that there have been over a million protesters in one country alone, and 2,400 planned protests. — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly per mike gigs - if this is going to become a regular phenomenon ,then it should go in Ongoing rather than posted as a fresh item every week.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: I'm rather confused by your reasoning. This is the final day of striking planned, and any subsequent "regular phenomen[a]"–which I'm not aware of the existence of–certainly wouldn't be housed at September 2019 climate strikes. This is the second major day in a series of global strikes that have been planned since November 2018, and I'd be surprised to see anything of this scale again until mid-2020 at the earliest. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it, and then we can think about writing some new articles and putting one in "Ongoing". — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      Ah OK... you'll have to forgive me, I don't know the details of the story and assumed from the fact that there were strikes last week and this week, that they would be ongoing. Obviously if there were a further strike next Friday then I'd expect us to move the article to September – October 2019 climate protests or similar. But if this is the last one, then who knows... maybe it's worth "re-elevating" the story we posted last week, but I'll leave that to others to decide. Switching from oppose to Neutral for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      Thanks for the reply. — Bilorv (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added an alt blurb so that this doesn't seem like a brand new thing but a continuation from the Sept 20 ones. Also tentatively saying millions based on the 1M from Italy, that may be subject to change. --Masem (t) 13:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed that "millions" is accurate, and I prefer your blurb over mine. — Bilorv (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing If this is still newsworthy immediately after rolling off the main page (it literally just fell off shortly before this request for a new blurb) then it should be posted as an "ongoing" link instead. We shouldn't keep bumping what is essentially the same post to the top of the page every time there's a new round of protests. That's exactly the purpose of ongoing. Lets put it there. --Jayron32 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This appears to have been planned as the 20th one. It is not like there are more immediate plans for climate strikes in the next several weeks, or that this one today happened out of nowhere. So it's a little weird to put this to ongoing for the second day of events, because tomorrow it would be stale for that purpose. --Masem (t) 14:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • The article makes it look like these are isolated events, but these are really part of the larger School strike for the climate/Fridays for the Future movements, which have been happening every Friday for months. See List of school climate strikes. They've been going on for over a year. Yes, the most recent two have been much bigger, but this is not a one-off (or now two-off) event, but rather part of a regular, ongoing story. --Jayron32 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support School strike for climate as ongoing as second choice per Jayron32, but I still believe that the two strike events in September 2019 climate strikes are significant enough for ITN as individual events, given that their attendance is sizeably larger than the two largest FFF events, and a couple of orders of magnitude larger than any others. — Bilorv (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing - The strikes look like continuing into immediate future at least. STSC (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: it should surely be School strike for the climate included at ongoing, not September 2019 climate strikes, which are already finished now (or ending in the next few hours, at least). — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      But that wasn't the nominated article... I think people were voting based on the strike that took place today, but I don't know, not sure I could declare a definite consensus for the alternative article. Maybe open a new nomination to explicitly request switching the target to that article and see if it has consensus?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      I'm seeing some ambiguity in the discussion above. "The strikes look like continuing into immediate future at least", for instance. Well, no, the September 2019 ones ended today, as I told another user above, but the school strikes for climate are continuing so that's what I took the comment to mean.
      @Jayron32, STSC, and MSN12102001: in your support of an "ongoing" link, did you (a) refer to September 2019 climate strikes and also understand that they ended today; (b) refer to School strike for the climate or a similar page on the more general movement; or (c) misunderstand in some way? If (c), it would be useful if you could express support or opposition for (1) September 2019 climate strikes being listed as an event and (2) School strike for the climate being listed as ongoing (two independent proposals). — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Let the "September strike" disappear from ongoing, then I would support it if you nominate the "school strike" as a blurb. STSC (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support speedy removal from ongoing: the strikes only lasted from Sep 20-27 so definitely not ongoing.  Nixinova  T  C  06:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

Current events of September 26, 2019 (2019-09-26) (Thursday)
edithistorywatch
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) 2019 Ambon earthquake[edit]

Article: 2019 Ambon earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An earthquake strikes Maluku, Indonesia, killing at least 30 people

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Considering the current blurb for the Kashmir quake, might have to reword the blurb Juxlos (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Short but I can't see much more coming rapidly on this due to location. Sourced and covers basics. --Masem (t) 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major fatal earthquake. Article is short but fully referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the comments above. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – Sufficient for ITN. Ping Muboshgu because this has been ready for a few hours and you were the most recently active admin I could find. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Note that Supreme court is the oldest and should be removed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: William Levada[edit]

Article: William Levada (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Catholic News Agency,

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Catholic cardinal, former Archbishop of San Francisco and prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Should hopefully be adequately referenced. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019 Hong Kong protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Hong Kong protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: Another one not being "continuously updated". I know where the "history" link is too it's all ref fixes and content tweaks, no new info for days. Stale, very stale now. Had a good run. LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with this. It's really no longer in the news. It'd been there also for a long time it seems. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I still see HK pop up when I check the front Google News page, but it not as intense as it was when this was added. --Masem (t) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support due to lack of meaningful, large-scale updates to the article recently ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose / wait per Masem. Still in the news, but less so than before. Davey2116 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Lack of interest even in broadsheet newspapers, and not much updates in the article. STSC (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Masem and per Davey2116. There's no scarcity of news articles when I look for them (I easily found 10 stories from 10 outlets from today with one search). I'm still seeing it prominently in my news feed every couple of days, so it would not be appropriate to remove it at this time. The article certainly could benefit from further updates, but with the breadth of available news stories we'd likely need to put it back on ITN as soon as the article sufficiently covers the latest information.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – There has been no significant update since September 20 making this older than the oldest blurb. This is objectively old news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove No substantial updates since at least 23 September. Being in the news and updates will come later can't be reasons to keep articles in Ongoing.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
On further reading, I note that many edits are biased or even outright sloganeering, despite this being a semi-protected. They are being (rightfully) reverted, but they're still up for a few hours at least. Those are hours in which readers are clicking on the link from the Front Page and seeing bad text. The article protection ends today, and perhaps it would be better to have a period of full protection to get the article sorted, and if anything comes up in the mean time, re-nom for Ongoing.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove We don't need to keep it up just because the protest continue. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Banedon, the protests are still going, there are still developments happening, and the international press are still covering it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed from Ongoing. SpencerT•C 13:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just curious: do we need consensus to keep or consensus to remove? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I looked in WP:ITN but didn't find anything on this. I would assume though that we need consensus to remove ongoing from ITN, as usually we need consensus in favor of doing an action (usually adding something to ITN) but in this case that action is actually removing an Ongoing article. Does anyone else agree? Or do I sound crazy? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - For those who oppose please note: "Articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" per WP:ITN - STSC (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-removal oppose considering that List of September 2019 Hong Kong protests is still being updated. And if we must link 2019 Hong Kong protests from the main page, I'm happy to update it. I particularly expect significant events to occur on 1 October so this would probably have to be re-added to Ongoing in a few days, if it's not restored now. feminist (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Papua protests[edit]

Article: 2019 Papua protests (talk, history)
Ongoing item removal

Nominator's comments: While the protests may still be "ongoing" the story is no longer "frequently in the news" and the article is not being "continuously updated". LaserLegs (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal - it is still very much ongoing and in the news. Just 2 days ago The Guardian reported "At least 20 killed and 70 injured in day of violence in West Papua" [13], and the recent sources which have been added covering that violence include Al Jazeera and The New York Times. The article has had edits every day since the 22nd September, although there was only one edit between the 14th and the 22nd. The most recent additions need some editing, and no doubt other editors will do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait maybe a few more days. There were several substantive updates on September 22 & 23; I would leave this for a little while. If nothing new happens by the weekend or so, then I would agree that it needs to be taken down. --Jayron32 16:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - still some considerable updates recently. BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait I too noticed some updates being made recently, pretty significant ones too. No need to rush to take this down ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. While I would have supported this removal if it were proposed about a week ago, it has received major updates over the last few days as tensions significantly escalated.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 18:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I was on a wikibreak a week ago ... but consider that one meaningful update in weeks might not be enough... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Meaningful updates have been occurring within the last few days because the situation itself has been re-intensifying over the last few days; had the Papua protests been removed previously, now would actually be a good time to put the story back up onto ITN.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 21:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose scores of people were killed or injured just a couple days ago. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is being rather overshadowed by the SEA haze. Banedon (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Jayron32. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Remove – Now stale. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wamena-Jayapura riots said it all. Dhio-270599 03:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Since 24 September, there have been no material updates to the article. The large byte-numbers in the edit history are a quirk of Wiki's diff algorithm. That 7 kb change was padding references, a few hundred bit changes here and there are tweaking the infobox. On September 23 a new section was created to document the resumption of protests, and the results of which have not merited mention in the article. Three days of no updates and an apparent loss of interest by editors means this should go.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    You have perfectly explained why we should wait. Template:In the news shows that the oldest blurb is from September 22. As long as the most recent significant update to the article is as recent or more recent than the oldest blurb, this should stay, per WP:ITN#Ongoing section: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had thought that this direction was more of a litmus test. That, updates should be frequent and the quoted circumstance indicates infrequent updates; not that the circumstance should be a requirement for being infrequent. I am leaving my vote as is, because a 3 day break in updates is obviously not continuously updated per the stated criteria for Ongoing. Even moreso when "scores of people were killed" (to quote someone above) and this still doesn't result in updates.130.233.2.252 (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, 7 days since last substantial update, and 4 days of NO UPDATES at all.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. Per above. --Jayron32 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

RD/Blurb: Jacques Chirac[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Jacques Chirac (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former French President Jacques Chirac (pictured) dies aged 86.
News source(s): (New York Times) (Guardian)

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Bruzaholm (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose solely on article quality. When these issues are dealt with, then a blurb is supportable. Major world politician that is blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Several citation issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, per Mjroots - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - until article is done.BabbaQ (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, RD is fine once the referencing issues are resolved. An influential politician, but not a world-changing one. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
His opposition to the war in Iraq forced the US and UK to go it alone; that was pretty world-changing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think history would have been very different if French troops marched into Basra alongside the British ones. Chirac didn't stop the war. Modest Genius talk 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, per others. The article needs some updating. However, once resolved, I would support a blurb over RD ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for section title issues. I understand that there is a desire to have descriptive headings, but I think there are either too many of them, or several sections put too much information in the headings. Rockphed (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Definite blurb if article issues are resolved. Former leader deaths of major nations are almost always blurbed, and Chirac was leader for a full twelve years.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only The standard is "major transformative world leaders in their field" not leader of a G7 country. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD - per what I've been told, we're no longer covering deaths of former leaders or leaders in blurbs. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

per what I've been told -- how is that an argument? -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support blurb Chirac was a pretty important world leader, he lead a major nation for 12 years. I remember hearing about him quite often in world news when he was president of France. 1779Days (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Just because he was the head of a G7 nation doesn't mean we should automatically give his death a blurb. He's been out of office for over a decade. He wasn't a transformative figure, as best I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb (obviously) when ready. Leader of a major nation, who had important global effects. Davey2116 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2116:, obviously not an "obvious" blurb since three people above you have written "oppose blurb". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The reasons given by these opposers are not really substantial imo. We're not trying to blurb this just because he was a G7 leader; he was a dominant figure in France for decades and had far-reaching global effects as has been said (Iraq war, nuclear testing, his support for the EU and NATO, etc.). Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • His point (I think) is that calling one side of a dispute "obviously" the right one is disrespectful of those expressing the opposing opinion. The blurb threshold is extremely subjective, so neither opinion is the "correct" one. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, support blurb in principle. Chirac was the most important living French President, and also served two terms as Prime Minister; I'd suggest that Chirac is the only post-Mitterand French President who would deserve a blurb. He was one of the most important global voices that opposed the War in Iraq; and also played a role in ending France's atomic bomb tests. He also played a significant role in the French-speaking world. However, the article is in bad shape right now--I counted 18 citation needed tags, and several more unreferenced paragraphs--and this article cannot be posted until that is remedied. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD or blurb when ready. He was an important world leader, and his policies on issues like nuclear testing (especially in the Pacific), French overseas military bases (especially in Africa), and the Iraq war had international impacts. (Surely Americans remember when French fries were renamed Freedom fries?) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose large swathes of text are unreferenced. It can be posted when the text quality is fixed. I'm agnostic on whether or not this is a blurb or RD. Makes no difference. --Jayron32 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Cannot be just RD, he was a notable global statesman. STSC (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality - I would support blurb but the article needs fixing up on its sourcing as it has a lot of citation needed tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, but Support blurb on significance, once sourcing is improved. -Zanhe (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality but support blurb – Article quality is still a problem. But Jacques Chirac was a major influential world leader. His death warrants a blurb. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've fixed/removed most of the references error messages [14]. Those mentioning "article quality" etc. here would be more helpful if when objections were more to the point, that is: make actable points. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A valid point. We tend to be less specific when the quality is worse. The overwhelming majority of this article has no references at all. The RD/blurb argument is moot; this is probably not going up. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The article would be OK if every opponent here had fixed just one reference. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • They aren't the ones asking for it to be posted to the main page. It is incumbent upon those requesting that an action be taken to make the necessary changes so it can be taken. People who haven't expressed the desire to have it posted are under no obligation to fix the article. People who want it posted should fix it themselves. --Jayron32 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't mention any obligation, not even an expectation. Just a help suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Even a suggestion that opponents fix the problems they detect is frowned upon, as it is a hair away from saying "...or else hold your tongue." GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad framing. Again: I did not "suggest[ion] that opponents fix the problems". Please stop it.
Actually, what is the actual ground to declare 'bad quality'? Can't we use a FA-GA-A-..-C assesment? -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────┘ The real issue is: a very notable President died and this wiki cannot get the article link on its mainpage. Dozens of opinions here re article quality, but only few editors actually moving the article fw. That Chirac is not on our mainpage is a disgrace. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, putting an article of that quality on the main page would be a disgrace. WP:SOFIXIT and it'll get posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar wth this page, but the gratuitous declarations of '[bad] quality' are below standard. And useless, uncheckable. How did those !voters here decide? No argument, no points for improvement, nothing. We'd better have just one (speedy) FA-...-C assessment, inviting improvement. A lousy thread this is. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, citations, specifically the lack thereof. Do you see the orange tag on the article? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I see two even! (in some 40 paragraphs). But I do not get a single argument here on what would be acceptable? How is ths article ba, compared to other RD listed articles? My question remains: how do we measure & judge this "quality"? Why do I not see a single point for improvement to make the article MP-worthy? All I see is !votes/votes. Useless. (Sure after my pressure drops of useful notes appear. OTOH, I read that "article quality assessment don't count". sure.). -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now due to quality, support blurb per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • RD asap I propose. Important Predsident (he opposed Iraq war, agains US dominace). Those dozen+ claiming '[bad] article quality' may not have scrutinised the article really, I doubt their judgement wrt detail and actual faults. Anyway, the article should be assessed (speedily) instead of judgerd by free, unchecked remarks. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I counted more than 30 paragraphs without a single reference, and multiple unreferenced sections. Your unilateral assessment is meaningless. Stephen 21:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, please clear those two orange tags, they're the obstacles to getting posted in ITN. STSC (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@STSC: 1. Please don't talk down on me. Everyone can fix them, you too. 2. Until now, nobody argued that those tags were the issue (they just !voted, remember). How should we know that removing them was the obstacle to do? Even now, how can you guarantee promotion of the article after this? 3. And please don't talk down on me. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, The article has to have everything supported by citations and no tags (or any reasons to have tags). No unsupported information or anything unreferenced. Yes, Chirac should be on the MP, but he needs to have an article of sufficient standard. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't talk down on you, it's just a friendly advice. "'orange' level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page" per WP:ITN. If I have time, I'd make the effort to find the references but it looks like an enormous task, to be honest. STSC (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DePiep: I assume you're new to ITN, as you seem baffled by the Oppose !votes above which cite the article's quality,yet that is always a thing people look for when they decide if a page is eligible. The rule is set out at WP:ITN#Article quality and, as SchroCat says, it generally requires every paragraph to have at least one source, and every fact that may be challenged to be cited. I'd love to help out with fixing the article, but unfortunately it's late and I don't have the time now, and frankly it's a huge task as JC's page is not in good shape right now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Amakuru. Yes I am new here, as I noted. For the first time someone points to the more objective criteria applicable here. Took some posts to get here. So, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: you're welcome and yes, I can understand that it's difficult if you are new to a place and don't understand the established rules. It's often worth looking at the top of project pages if you're not sure - this one has a lot of useful links near the top, explaining all details of the ITN process. Have a nice weekend and good luck to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality per above. This article is going to need a lot of work before it can be posted. Referencing in particular is unacceptable for any article much less one covered by BLP. I have also reverted DePiep's grading the article as a B class. It is not even close to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on RD. Major world leader. Hybernator (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Chirac's death is a pretty glaring omission from the home page. It's also kind of wild that the death of a former U.S. president will get a blurb within an hour or two of his death, while a former French president can't even be included in the "Recent deaths" section because it would generate more traffic and potential contributors to his article(???). What a bizarre and bad system. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
There are about two dozen CN tags throughout the article, which might be covered by other references within the article, or which might be resolved by removing that particular sentence (the article is very granular), but they are deserved. This is a common problem with articles using non-English sources for references; it greatly reduces the number of editors that can resolve such things. I do this from time to time, but it is a tedious task, especially when the CN is for a direct, already-translated quote, or when (esp. in this case) the CN is for a purported motivation that looks suspiciously like an editorialization that you find in political literature. Articles for US presidents have an active group of editors curating their pages, so when one dies that articles are already in a postable state.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Southeast Asian haze: blurb/ongoing[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2019 Southeast Asian haze (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During the 2019 Southeast Asian haze, nearly 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases.
Alternative blurb: ​Nearly 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases resulting from smoke from wildfires across Southeast Asia since June 2019.
Alternative blurb II: ​During the 2019 Southeast Asian haze, over 800,000 people endure respiratory diseases.
News source(s): The Guardian, Bloomberg Quint, The Diplomat, SCMP (nearly 900,000...), Vice, The Straits Times, Aljazeera, and many others

 Dhio-270599 02:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the Amazon fires made it to the blurb, the ongoing SE Asian fire might be blurb-worthy as well. Open to blurb alternatives; especially from non-Indonesia datas (the main blurb and the first alternative represent impacts in Indonesia). Dhio-270599 02:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC) Update: first alternative removed)

  • I think we need better blurbs, not that this isn't ITN-able. The second blurb is not appropriate (anything that is along the lines "won't someone think of the children" and ignore the adult also affected is not neutral). The first blurb is true from the SCMP article, but it should explain this is total #s over the last few months. The issue is coming to head now just as the Amazon fires did - air quality was so bad as to make the sky red in parts of SE Asia, but this is not just a sudden event. --Masem (t) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Thank you for the advice. Face-smile.svg Deleted the first alternative; is "Over the last few months, almost 900,000 people endure respiratory diseases from the 2019 Southeast Asian haze" a sufficient alternative for the main nominated blurb? Dhio-270599 03:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Don't feel obligated to suggest a perfect blurb yourself. We can crowd source something appropriate. Instead can you make sure "900,000" has an in-line citation? I don't see it mentioned in the article clearly. Editors here are unlikely to accept synthesis of figures. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - In principal, there are a couple of citation issues to be cleared. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support While the article isn't in the best shape, I think it just squeaks by for good enough. If a couple more citations were added where they're needed, it would be a shoe-in. I'll look into finding some ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks good now. I'd prefer ongoing but I'll support either blurb or ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There are enough decent references —and well placed. Good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Blurb fact still not mentioned in target article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: - it is mentioned now [16]. starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - major environmental disaster affecting multiple countries. Article is now well developed. -Zanhe (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment clearly strong support, this is good to go, but make sure the blurb is properly constructed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE I'd be fine with posting the article, but we do NOT as yet have a decent blurb. Both blurbs are currently demonstratedly factually wrong, as the text of the article says that 900,000 people in one particular country have experienced respiratory distress, yet our blurb states the wrong fact that there are 900,000 total people. We need to find another hook for this one before it's posted, and the 900,000 figure needs to go entirely. --Jayron32 12:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It seems hard to find a # affected, but agree it should be of all countries, not just one. --Masem (t) 13:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Would it be too vague to just say "...over a million people endure..."? I'm concerned with ever nailing down an actual number ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, but we need a citation about even that in the article. Currently, the only citation we have is for 900,000 in Indonesia. Maybe, it would be better to make this an ongoing link instead. That works for solid articles that are of newsworthy stories, but where there isn't a good blurb to write. This one seems more of a slow burn (excuse the pun) anyways, which is more suited for ongoing. --Jayron32 13:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Proposed ALT2 - which is factually accurate even though we only know the number for Indonesia. starship.paint (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I wish we had an estimate of the size of the cloud in square kilometers or something instead of trying to tie this to a human cost with a dubious (but verifiable) claim of nearly a million people suffering respiratory diseases because of it. #twocents anyway. Blurb before ongoing is my standard position, FWIW. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Per above. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb using ALT2. In all honesty, I think the blurb wording could be improved; recommend any suggestions with better precision go to WP:ERRORS. SpencerT•C 16:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

September 25[edit]

Current events of September 25, 2019 (2019-09-25) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch
Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Shuping Wang[edit]

Article: Shuping Wang (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, WA Post

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chinese medical worker that helped to identify bad practices that led to the spread of hepatidis and HIV in central China in the 1990s, which she was shunned and attacked for, forcing her to move to the US. We never had an article on her (!) but not only do we have obits but we also have the fact that she was, early this month, helping in the production of a play based on her experiences that opened in London, so we also have some coverage to add for there. (That is, she was notable before her death, just that we never created this article). Will need improvement before posting. Masem (t) 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment NOW it is at a state that should be minimally good for RD. --Masem (t) 14:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support thank you for starting this article @Surtsicna:! Thsmi002 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work Surtsicna and Masem! I read about it on BBC last night. This should probably be posted under Sep 25 as that's when her death was reported. -Zanhe (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you, people! If this proposal does not pass, I will nominate the article for DYK, as was my initial intention. Surtsicna (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Adding a note that while I had nominatd this at the Sept 22, she actually died Sept 21, but first reports of her death were on 25th. --Masem (t) 23:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment still ready, 12 hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Though I have 2 minor problems: I am unsure if she should be listed as Wang Shuping or Shuping Wang (at least one source lists her as Wang Shuping), and the article does not explain what her medical credentials were. I see her listed as a doctor in one of the sources. Was it missed in the article, or do we not have any sources that actually explain what her medical credentials were? To be clear, I don't think either of these problems is enough to stop posting this otherwise excellently written and well sourced article. Rockphed (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    • As for your first question, per the article: "The native form of this personal name is Wang Shuping. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals." (Wang is the family name). SpencerT•C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 12:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • She died 21 September. And is placed before Arne Weise on the Main Page. And is placed on the 25th here. Move.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
    @BabbaQ: it looks like her death was not announced until the 25th. If that was the case, then she is eligible to be listed under the later date. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Kashmir earthquake[edit]

Article: 2019 Kashmir earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​38 people dead and 723 injured in an earthquake in Kashmir
Alternative blurb: ​38 people have died and 723 injured in an earthquake in Kashmir
News source(s): Dawn, CNN, Guardian, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major disaster with casualties. Article may need expansion Now expanded to double size.. DBigXrayᗙ 15:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support This is the deadliest earthquake in 2019, killing nearly twice as many as the second-deadliest earthquake, and the death toll is still rising. The article could use some expansion, but what is there appears to be cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support though would like to see more expansion if possible. We're talking a relatively remote area so that may not coming quickly. --Masem (t) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article is bare-bones, but it does have sufficient citations to make it usable. It will most likely be expanded as time goes on. INeedSupport :V 16:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Article could be expanded, and I expect it will be, but the sourcing for what is there is good ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Significance and impact are obvious. Article needs some expansion though. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed I have doubled the size of the article since the time I nominated it. More expansion will follow, but it can now be posted. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Still a short article, but it looks well written. Rockphed (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Muboshgu, can someone post the credits. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 Done by Spencer--DBigXrayᗙ 03:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arne Weise[edit]

Article: Arne Weise (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SVT

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Sourced well, no objections here ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Seems perfectly well sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Hazza Al Mansouri[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 23:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Proposed image
Article: Hazza Al Mansouri (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hazza Al Mansouri (pictured), the first United Arab Emirates astronaut, is launched to the International Space Station
News source(s): The New York Times, CBS News
 – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 15:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - quality is not good enough, too many citations needed. Also not sure if this is really newsworthy, we don't typically cover the first astronaut from X country do we? Presumably the mission itself, Soyuz MS-15, might qualify under WP:ITN/R, although its article is also little more than a stub.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I mean, this is important for UAE and don't want to downplay that, but superlative things like this (first X to Y) don't necessary make the greatest ITNs unless we're talking national leaders. --Masem (t) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose would make a great hook for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd refer the nominator to the DYK process, which is perfect for stuff like this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • We should not refer articles to WP:DYK when they have no chance of meeting the 5X expansion requirement. It seems cynical and not helpful. We can just oppose. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Nonsense, GAN is a perfectly normal route these days for that part of the main page, arguably much easier than a 5× expansion. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
        Not everyone considers GAN as easy as you seem to think they are and it would be helpful then to point out that the nominator should improve to GA and then nominate. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
        That's as maybe, but it still shouldn't stop us recommending other aspects of Wikipedia which are perfectly apt for this kind of story. I'm not going to regurgitate the rules of DYK, that's for others to discover. Your "cynical" claim is offensive, likewise pretending it to be "not helpful" is, itself, not helpful. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
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.

RD: Linda Porter[edit]

Article: Linda Porter (actress) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [17]

Article updated
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Announced today that Porter died a few days ago. Not sure about the extensive filmography section but short and sweet otherwise. Sam Walton (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose stub with an IMDb dump. Stephen 23:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=919149505"