Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2019

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

 * Support ongoing, the article is in a good shape. --Tone 08:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support much improved from prior nom. Very nice work.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Two sources added above re "thousands' being trapped on beaches in southeastern Australia. Pretty dire situation, to say the least. – Sca (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question the criteria for ongoing is "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". What fires are active right now? The South East section mentions a 10 ha fire which is hardly notable. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "On 30 December, there were three active fires in East Gippsland on Sunday with a combined area of more than 130,000ha"  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly a major event that is in the news. Article quality looks decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely. It's not over and there still are daily news updates.  It's also an issue of international interest.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Example of current active coverage — Paleo Neonate  – 07:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready for OngoingBabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted as ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support moving this and the Citizenship Amendment Act protests up onto the bullet points if someone wants to suggest a blurb or photo, actually. I see them as more important than at least two of the items there. Blythwood (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Citizenship act was already posted as a blurb and would be inappropriate again. Ongoing is correct for that. For these Aussie fires, the problem is that they have been ongoing for several months, only now that they have started to have more threatening effects are the rest of the world taking notice. A blurb would not make sense here while ongoing is perfect. --M asem (t) 06:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If things get any worse, I think we might consider a blurb. Wars go on for a long time too, but now and then there are significant developments that make news. AP puts total deaths in Australia fires at 17 .– Sca (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: 4,000 people stuck on burning beach in Mallacoota. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN items are ordered chronologically, not in order of "importance".--WaltCip (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sonny Mehta

 * Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 06:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry Kupfer

 * Support - I can't see any refs issues preventing it from being published.--SirEdimon (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – A significant, longtime international cultural figure. "One of the most important German opera directors" – Spiegel. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems ready. BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - a substantial article, very well referenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -, I think you forgot to give Gerda Arendt the "credits". I did it. If I done something wrong please revert my edit on Gerda Arendt's talk page. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , whoops, thank you! New at this! --valereee (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , no problem. It's good to have more admins around here. Thanks for your job.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Syd Mead

 * Comment - I worked on improving the page a bit but it still needs some outside sources in certain sections. The referencing is better than it was, at least. Spengouli (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is satisfactory. A day or it was nothing more than a few disjointed paragraphs and a list. HAL  333  23:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The orange tags that this page had are now gone. Spengouli (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Prosper Grech

 * Comment - Just a few sentences needing sourcing.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Updated sourcing, hope it's satisfactory Joseywales1961 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - still thinly sourced. Adding sources to the summary for facts already sourced below does not address the issue. I’ll add some tags to clarify. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I've taken care of the citation-needed tags; in most cases, those details weren't very relevant to the article. The remainder of the article is adequately sourced. &mdash;  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 00:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Neil Innes

 * Weak and regretful oppose - the article has far too much unsourced content and I just don't have time at the moment to go through and cite everything. A shame, because I was fortunate enough to meet Innes when my (then) wife was expecting our first child, and he was a thoroughly nice and enthusiastic guy, full of life and optimistic for both his and our future. A sad loss :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree - Neil Innes the man should be celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Grogan UX Designer (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vaughan Oliver

 * Support - Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted I have edited this myself to add a source for place of birth, but I don't think there are any doubts it's ready for posting. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Alasdair Gray

 * Significant Scottish author and artist. Article could use a few more references, and an overview assessment of some of his literary works (many of which have their own articles with critical reception sections); also doesn't quite yet capture the mischievous liveliness of the man. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems ready for posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) December 2019 Mogadishu bombing

 * Oppose Bus plunge disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, two bus plunges in two days, already? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Scroll though current events they're daily you want me to nominate every body count story? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some difficulty parsing your sentence there. But all editors are free to propose as they wish. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - it's very different to a bus plunge, which is usually an accident with a death toll of low double figures at most. This is a very notable attack in which over 70 people were killed in a suicide truck bombing in a major city. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending development of article. Note that Reuters quotes source saying "at least" 90 killed. – Sca (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, Death toll needs update as per Sca, and It would be better to highlight it was a suicide bombing. --CoryGlee (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, in principle as it is a trending situation. --cyrfaw (talk ) 17:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Solely on article quality. The article needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely to be edited by many people unless it's put on the homepage. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how ITN works. Quality before posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How else can we bring more editors to it? Jim Michael (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Notify Wikiprojects, tag it for improvement, add it to the current events portal. Either way ITN isn't for getting mediocre articles improved. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in 8 projects & on that portal, yet has only had 6 editors. I can't see which tags could be appropriate for it. Jim Michael (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There's been more expansion; would you be able to have another look? Best,  Spencer T• C 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support on expansion. Still not wowed by the article, but it's good enough for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Support but should be expanded before main page. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not surprising it's short; it has only had nine editors. What is missing from the article which should be included in it? Jim Michael (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Does not meet the minimum "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs", but is almost there.  Spencer T• C 00:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Has been sufficiently expanded to minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1300 characters of prose would not even meet DYK minimum.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that a specific minimum number of characters is a requirement for articles to be posted to ITN or DYK? Jim Michael (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the appropriately titled "WP:DYKRULES," a 1,500 character minimum is noted. Bagumba did not state ITN had a character minimum but implied DYK's standard was lower than ITN's (most ITNC contributors would agree).    GreatCaesarsGhost   17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is 5203 bytes. How many characters of prose does it have? Jim Michael (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can refer to the readable prose guideline WP:RPS.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That link says it has 2922 characters of prose. If there's a minimum number of characters to qualify for ITN it should be stated somewhere. Jim Michael (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There's been more expansion; would you be able to have another look? Best,  Spencer T• C 00:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Significant death toll and coverage. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. What is there is sufficient for a Start-class article. Brandmeistertalk  11:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for ITN inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose If we're going to post something so short, the quality should be better. This is going to sound petty, but three straight sentences use the subject-verb combo "group claimed" in the Responsibility section. In addition, we say no one claimed responsibility, then we say someone did.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of a minimum length requirement for ITN; if you're saying there is, please link to the relevant policy/guideline which states it. Also, please say what reliably sourced info should be included in the article which currently isn't.
 * When a terrorist group say they were the attackers, the phrase claimed responsibility is the usual term that the mainstream media use. Now that al-Shabaab have said they were the attackers, the article no longer needs to state that it was initially unknown which group did it.
 * Most of the commenters in this discussion have made no edits to the article or its talk page. If the article had more than 13 editors it would likely be of better quality. Jim Michael (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A) Again with this straw-man argument? No one said there is a minimum length. There is minimum QUALITY, and short articles will struggle to be comprehensive. B) My objection is not to the term, but that it is poor composition style to use the same subject and verb repeatedly. The article needs a copyedit. C) editors are free to contribute wherever, however, and it what quantity they like. There is no expectation that contributing at ITNC requires you to work on each article that is nominated.   GreatCaesarsGhost   18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per In the news, it states: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" and includes an example of what a minimum standards looks. While not a minimum character requirement like DYK, let's not be disingenuous and conclude that this requirement is "no evidence of a minimum length requirement for ITN." Best,  Spencer T• C 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It fits those criteria in regard to the paragraphs.
 * By minimum length, I meant in terms of number of lines/characters/bytes, in response to the claim that it's not even long enough for DYK - strongly implying that ITN articles must be significantly longer than the minimum for DYK.
 * Had this bombing occurred anywhere in the Western world, the article would have been edited by hundreds of people & would be multiple times longer. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This is notable due to the high death toll & it appears the article now meets minimum standards for quality & length. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 01:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RD: Don Imus

 * Support. I've seen worse articles. Though it does amuse me to see an article of a radio host whose "Controversies" section is much longer and more exhaustively detailed than his "Career" section.--WaltCip (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Highly notable radio host who was on the air for 50 years and influenced several others (i.e. Howard Stern). Was basically the first shock jock. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the usual reasons and because a CSECTION on a BLP is never appropriate in my book. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: He's not a living person any more. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP continues to apply to pages about recently deceased persons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a great example of why it's a bad practice. The focus on a few negative events minimizes a long accomplished career.  GreatCaesarsGhost   04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They weren't just a few negative events; they were a big deal and garnered a lot of news coverage and controversy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an entire article about the controversial stuff Howard Stern has said on the air so Imus's page having a few incidents mentioned is fine. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A perfect demonstration of recentism causing undue over coverage of then current events. Federal Communications Commission fines of The Howard Stern Show should be trimmed and merged into The Howard Stern Show which is only 25,884 characters (See WP:PAGESIZE). --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. Charles Jones

 * Support Very well sourced. Spengouli (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Turkish court overturns Wikipedia ban

 * Oppose - As tempting as it might be to look at our own navels.--WaltCip (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I understand the navel-gazing concerns, but this seems to be a notable ruling for Turkey. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Per 331dot. Widely caried by RS sites (3 added above) as significant for freedom of information. (FWIW, German Wiki has led their ITN box – In den Nachrichten – with it all WEEK.) – Sca (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: I've never been tempted to gaze at my navel. – Sca (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Limited lasting notability; navel-gazing. In general, Wikipedia-related news has not fared well in this section: Italy in 2010, France in 2013, UK in 2015, Pakistan in 2010, etc.  Spencer T• C 00:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree that this does not have lasting notability; this is a significant free speech ruling in a country not known for free speech. I don't see it as a Wikipedia story, but as a free speech story. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is true, the article does not have any information regarding the implications of it being unblocked. Besides the sentence in the introduction, the article only has On 26 December 2019, the court ruled in a 10–6 vote that the block of Wikipedia violated the freedom of expression and ordered it to be lifted immediately without any further reactions/information about how this sets precedent, etc. If the article can be expanded to show how this is clearly the case, I would be willing to support.  Spencer T• C 19:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The ruling has broad implications regarding censorship. As such I am inclined to believe this is more than navel gazing. I do note that there are a couple of tags related to the technical aspects of the article, though I don't think they are enough to hold up posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if the wikipedia gets opened (Still blocked as of 28 December 2019 22:49, Turkey time). Court decision does not mean it will be applied, we're not Switzerland. --Joseph (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind if I ask, but how are you accessing the site? 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:958E:F6C1:2F9C:3668 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DNS over wifi, I check with mobile data.--Joseph (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditional support. I agree with 331dot wrt navel gazing but I also see Joseph's point that the Turkish government routinely ignores court rulings against it, so the story is only newsworthy if the ruling goes into effect and Wikipedia is actually unblocked. Regards So  Why  21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Widely carried by reputable sources and the article is in good shape. I disagree with those saying we should wait; ITN is for the news not the result. Whether the government complies with the ruling or not, the news is that the court ruled this is unconstitutional, and that's what news media are all frenzy about. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If we are ever going to post a Wikipedia story this should be it. P-K3 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article has had a cleanup tag since 2018 and still seems too vague about the actual status of the block. Court rulings don't mean much if they are not enforced. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose First it's a local item, second it's a one-off news item that has apparently already dropped off the news. Searching for this item for example does not yield stories newer than 3 days old (or new developments). Turkey's own news portals are focusing on other things, in particular the war in Syria. Banedon (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a 'local item', this is a national supreme court ruling involving one of the top visited websites in the world(which has a global physical presence). Very little would be posted if more than one country had to be involved in any posting. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You sure? As of right now, there are three items in the box. The first involves a plane crash. Per Boeing 737 MAX, this kind of plane crash can have international consequences. The second is about Jamal Khashoggi. A quick Google search yields three new items, variously titled "Khashoggi decision unacceptable attempt to acquit real perpetrators of murder, Altun says", "Saudi Arabia under fire over Khashoggi ruling – Middle East Monitor", and "'Antithesis of justice': Khashoggi verdict roundly condemned", showing it's continuing to make the news. The last item is about the Netherland's court ruling on climate change. Climate change obviously has international consequences. I'm not seeing any evidence this item is on par with the blurbs already posted. Banedon (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are good stretches and bad stretches. The fact remains that ITN is not (and should not be) limited to international events/events involving more than one country.  We even call this out at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I indicated as well, Wikipedia has a global presence, both physically and on the internet. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

* Remove photo of Jamal Khashoggi, please. Must be someone more important by 2020!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC) O
 * Support. Interesting from an encyclopedic standpoint, and overall relevant. --bender235 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: On principle I think it disimproves the encyclopedia, contrary to our 5th pillar and the related WP:IAR, if we self-destructively allow weak arguments about things like alleged navel-gazing to wittingly or unwittingly assist the harming of Wikipedia by failing to use the power of our front page to publicize serious harm being done to Wikipedia. In this case Wikipedia has been banned in Turkey for over 2 years, which is perhaps the most serious-ever attack on Wikipedia (and certainly one of the most serious-ever attacks on Wikipedia), and the outlawing of the ban by their Constitutional court is currently seemingly being ignored. We should not apologize for seeking to let our readers know about this and hoping this will help bring pressure to bear to implement the Court's decision. And any inappropriate wikilawyering arguments against this, such as WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RGW, should simply be ignored as outweighed by our 5th pillar and the related WP:IAR, and by the common-sense requirement that when attacked we should take reasonable measures to defend ourselves, as any sane organization would be expected to do. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Bek Air Flight 2100 plane crash

 * Oppose stub, Bus plunge --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Half the crash section is the eye witness account of a passenger. Literally nothing is known of the cause at this time. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be now leaning towards a non-brainless wait, even though it was just a "rickety airframe fished out of a is"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah it's still an insignificant Bus plunge disaster stub that is going to be functionally orphaned and atrophied as soon as the wire services stop following it. I was just pointing out that literally half the crash details are the eye witness account of a "businessman" passenger. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, a rapid and coherent eye-witness statement is quite notable from a fatal aviation crash. Even businessmen sometimes survive, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. you intend to re-mark it now as a "stub"?
 * Nah, the speculation of a fortunate survivor who is not in aviation, was not on the flight deck, was not privy to the preflight checks preformed and whose observations were provided to a media outlet and not trained air crash investigators actually has no value at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your reason for still opposing? Good luck if you decide to remove it. Not sure we'll get much of a statement from the captain. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No all my reasons for opposing are my reasons. The fight data recorder will tell us more than this businessman but by then there will be new dirty laundry. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what fight data recorders are for. Did someone mention a Taiwanese trash bin?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditional support upon improvement. The story is developing which is understandable, notability is a no-brainer. Brandmeistertalk  15:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because for unknown reasons a small low cost domestic carrier cashed a 20 year old regional jet from a company which has been out of business for two decades? I must be brainless since I'm not seeing the notability here. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How does "out of business for two decades" feature here exactly? Those 12 lives are worth comparatively less? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Beyond those fatalities, this crash was unusual in that 86 survived, of whom 49 were hospitalized. (The plane was of Dutch manufacture.) – Sca (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's a memorial thing? What are the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for notability? A little context -- because if a rare Uncontained engine failure of the most common power plant on the most common airplane wasn't notable then please explain how a podunk airline crashing a rickety airframe fished out of a is ... other than the completely irrelevant body count. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Rolling eyes.GIF – Sca (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A fatal civilian airline flight has been the standard for posting air crashes since ages. WP:MEMORIAL or MINIMUMDEATHS are irrelevant in this case. Brandmeistertalk  17:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IntoThinAir's MINIMUMDEATHS essay notes that the 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash killed 9 people but failed to be posted on notability. It does also quote you, wherein you state that double digits in airline deaths is automatically considered notable, so there's that.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest that, if and when this gets posted, we don't actually use the word "podunk" in any blurb. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. "Taiwanese trash bin"?
 * Top story on BBC News at Six tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - article now in a reasonable condition. No major problems. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now long enough for posting. Notability is obvious.  Nixinova   T   C  19:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I also agree to post it in ITN as it is a significant story making headlines on routine basis. Abishe (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Significant and long enough. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Will probably no longer be in the news when the cause is officially determined. But that is often the case with aircraft accidents. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Minor syntax revisions made to lead. Though comparatively short, looks good to go. Marked ready. – Sca (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Alt2 offered above. ('Flights' do not crash, planes do.) – Sca (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt2.  Spencer T• C 00:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the blurb format we use for these would be: Bek Air Flight 2100 crashes near Almaty Kazakhstan killing X of Y people on board. Lots of examples (I can't paste links on my phone). Can we please just use the standard air crash blurb instead of the ambiguous "a domestic airline"? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – The blurb originally approved for this item said, "A domestic airline's passenger plane crashes in Kazakhstan, killing at least 12 people and injuring 54 others." All three blurbs considered said "domestic" rather than "Bek Air" because few outside Kazakhstan and other ex-Soviet states have ever heard of Bek Air, thus it's not generally familiar to our English-speaking audience. Further, as noted above, 'flights' do not crash, planes do, so the approved blurb said "a domestic airline's passenger plane." In the interest of reader comprehension, suggest we return to the Alt2 blurb approved here (minus the word passenger, made redundant by "airline"). – Sca (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Reader comprehension" is improved by naming the flight like we always do. "A domestic airline" is ambiguous and unhelpful. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't an issue for the Ural airlines crash we posted last August. The standard air crash blurb is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the ultimate criterion at the English-language Wikipedia is "it fits the format." Forget about what the words signify to the reader. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Treating similar news in similar format is part of NPOV. Not naming the airline would be an indication of a Western/European POV. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a reader. I knew this was coming and when I saw the blurb my reaction was "a domestic airline, what the fuck does that mean?". Of course it's an airline a flock of condors didn't crash here and what does it matter if it's international or domestic? I don't know why you're so hung up on "flight" either. A flight, that is "a trip made by an aircraft, particularly one between two cities or countries, which is often planned or reserved in advance" to which this story is obviously referring can have numerous outcomes such as arriving, delay or crashing into the dirt a few miles from the airport. Seriously, I don't see a single actual published news story using the description "a domestic airline" because it's nonsense. Maybe the Guardian got it wrong?. We post these every 4 to 6 weeks what is suddenly wrong with the standard informative air crash blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A 'flight' is an abstract, descriptive word denoting an action by an airplane (or bird). It is not a noun referring to an airplane – it does not denote a thing-in-itself. It is the thing that crashes, not the action, which is not a thing but rather a mental concept. As Oxford states, a Flight is "an act of flying; a journey made through the air or in space, especially a timetabled journey made by an airline." 'Flights' don't crash because they aren't physical things. Airplanes sometimes crash, killing or injuring people inside them. That some at Wiki have made it a habit to refer to a 'flight' as if it were a thing does not make such irrational usage linguistically correct. The so-called "format" of which you're so unaccountably fond should be avoided by all. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Flight 2100" is a compound noun. Stating that a numbered flight, such as United Airlines Flight 93, crashed is perfectly grammatical and idiomatic. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but still not a thing in itself. The phrase refers to an action by a thing. It's not really an idiom – and besides idioms by their nature are not transparently intelligible, usually being metaphoric. – Sca (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant Idiomatic: "Using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker." --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Same diff. Still not a thing. Further the affiant sayeth naught. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment there is a free image (CC-SA is free enough?) of the accident aircraft in different livery if we want to update the box --LaserLegs (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kushal Punjabi

 * Oppose - Citation issues throughout the article. Especially for films section - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sue Lyon

 * Support - sufficiently referenced, so looks good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Herman

 * Support We're down to only four cn tags, and the article has been expanded and updated. I think this is probably ready. --valereee (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * May need checking for copyvio, situation is a little confusing --valereee (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is no copyvio issue. BroadwayWorld copied from us (not surprising, not the first time, we should ban this source as unreliable). The other hits on EarWig's are mostly quotes and titles of plays. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I could see they copied the obit from us, but I wondered if there were an earlier version somewhere. The language of the unsourced sections was more professional profile/obit than encyclopedic: In 1964, producer David Merrick united Herman with musical actress Carol Channing and librettist Michael Stewart for a project that was to become one of his more successful, Hello, Dolly! It just set off my spidey sense. Obits are often written well in advance, and possibly could be used as profiles somewhere before the person actually does die. --valereee (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's funny! That sentence is so good that it has been plagiarized by books like this one printed in 2016. However, it appears in earlier versions as in this revision from 2010. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , lol, sorry..it's not the professional-level writing by itself that makes me go hmmm, it's that when I see it, I expect that professional-level writer to also know to provide a source. :) I don't expect to see that kind of writing unsourced. But yeah, ten years ago, that was much more likely. --valereee (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Betelgeuse may be about to explode

 * Oppose According to the source, "about to" explode it means "within the next 200,000 to 300,000 years" and there's still the asterisk that it may happen in that timeframe, and the source says that this curious behavior has been observed for decades. Credit for a good-faith nomination about a fascinating subject, but "a large star may or may not explode within the next three hundred thousand years, as indicated by decades of evidence" isn't really news. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 15:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. Far too speculative. --M asem (t) 15:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – More 'news' no one can use. – Sca (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - That's bad news for Ford Prefect, but for us, it's a bit far out of sight and mind. WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – agree with the comments above - nonetheless - seems the best sources may be as follows  - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 26 Dec solar eclipse

 * Support - Such event occurred after 296 years of long wait, a unique event. I think it should be in news. Rocky 734 (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Unique event. Article looks ready for posting. BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Annular or not, more suitable for Children's Wikipedia. These happen—predictably—every year it seems. This would only be news if science was wrong. You can plan for the 2020 annular now.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, total eclipses are ITNR. But that only adds to your argument rather than detracts from it. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ephemeral, though hyped, past event with zero impact on Earth. – Sca (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom. Normally the enumeration at ITNR of certain events shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other events. However, all eclipses are predictable, so the absence here does seem indicative. Also, an event is not "making the news" because it comes up when you Google it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even almost a unique event. The last annular eclipse occurred in February 2017; the next will occur in June. —  Wasell ( T ) 21:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - We post annular eclipses here at ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Eclipse was visible from a widely populated area. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:958E:F6C1:2F9C:3668 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant. P-K3 (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Eclipses are run-of-the-mill events, and thoroughly predictable. Not of sufficient interest for ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Might have been a possibility for rapid posting, but now seems stale as four days ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lee Mendelson
Not sure why the template is not working for me... Article is Lee Mendelson, refs need work, will try to update later. –FlyingAce✈hello 18:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed the nom, the paramater name had some nbsp;s in it.  Nixinova  <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No wonder I missed it, my phone must have mucked up the template when I copied and pasted the wikicode. Thanks! –FlyingAce✈hello 00:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some entire paragraphs without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Schreier

 * I added a bit. It seems no longer recent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Article is generally OK, there are two uncied sentences in the "Career" section. It would be nice to get the two missing ISBNs for the "Literature" section for verifiability and is there a way of sourcing the "Documentary films" section? - Dumelow (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think, that this two GDR books don't have ISBN numbers. Grimes2 (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't really need the 3 old documentaries at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - a couple of citations needed, but solid enough otherwise. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Citation issues were all dealt with. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Táňa Fischerová

 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding her career.  Spencer T• C 00:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing looks good. P-K3 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ari Behn

 * Support – I found nothing to complain about. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage; first sentence states that Behn was an "author and painter" but there is very minimal information about his career in the body article.  Spencer T• C 00:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it nice to have the "more notable spouse" issue in reverse? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems fine to me. No refs issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD --valereee (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Phanfone causes at least thirteen deaths in the Phillipines

 * Comment – Support in principle, but existing piece is far too technical in a meteorological way and completely fails to tell the human story. AP says 28 killed. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * support - Article needs some human stories indeed. But the overall article right now are ok for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some parts need references.  Spencer T• C 00:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Similar track as Yolanda, but thankfully much less powerful. Deaths at least 28 now. 2607:FEA8:1DDF:FEE1:958E:F6C1:2F9C:3668 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Kelly Fraser

 * Weak support Would in general like to see more depth of coverage of the subject, but looks like she passed away young, just as her music career was starting to take off.  Spencer T• C 00:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what attention is needed, but I see that some sources have been removed, including the obituary in The Guardian which I added. I don't know why reliable, independent, international sources would be removed, so I will leave it up to others to do whatever is needed on this, or not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RebeccaGreen "Attention needed" is kind of an "alert" for admins who may have "forgotten" a nomination which is, eventually, ready to be published on the MP.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Spencer. I don't see any major ref issues preventing it from being published, but the article is a "start" at best.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: Allee Willis

 * Support Referencing appears good.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2016 Best Musical Theatre Album Grammy did go to "The Color Purple," but Willis is not listed as a recipient on the Grammy's site. Looking through the history, the composer/lyricist is sometimes awarded and sometimes not. Just my guess, but it seems they are omitted when existing songs are used (Beautiful: The Carole King Musical, Once, American Idiot, West Side Story (2009)). Otherwise, article looks good.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Willis is listed here (in category 58). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Andrew Miller

 * Oppose for now as it is undersourced. Lmk if sourcing is improved. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some improvement in sourcing over last couple of days but some parts still unsourced. Skteosk (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Citizenship Amendment Act protests

 * Ongoing would probably be a better idea.--WaltCip (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. The government instead of relenting has decided to defend the law, even though death toll climbs. Both are major news items across major newspapers. So a blurb is merited IMHO. An ongoing, though acceptable, will be the bare minimum for this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb or ongoing. Proseline in the extreme, bad grammar. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * LaserLegs, I did one round of copy-editing (edit: protests article). DTM (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article needs quite a bit of cleanup: there is a lot of duplicate information throughout, some copyediting is needed, and I'm not sure if a name list of all of the protest casualties is helpful in the article; I don't think that's typically done for similar articles (but I could be incorrect).  Spencer T• C 00:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing support for the protest article. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both blurb and ongoing Nothing notable enough to warrant another blurb. Ongoing would be ideal, but oppose on quality issues per LaserLegs because the proseline is too much at Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Also, since its currently organized geographically instead of chronologically, it's hard to navigate to the ongoing details. One example would be organization of 2019 Hong Kong protests, which had been in ongoing for a while.—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 24 December Times of India In one voice, 80,000 Bengaluru citizens reject CAA, the article has a timeline for fans of chronology. The geographical names are listed chronologically and not alphabetically. The protests are not under a central organisation so it is useful to read geographically how it proceeded. You are welcome to propose changes on the talk page.  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The comparison to HK is not applicable to India. One is a city and other is a large country with many states. Please propose your changes on article talk page. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  13:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The protests are still making headlines and of course Indian PM has strongly defended his aim of bringing the CAA into force. The blurb is looking good from my point of view. However protests are usually recommended to be posted in ongoing section. I see only Maltese protests are included under ongoing section and that too is in the verge of removal. Now the main opposition party Congress has come into the party as they also hold rally against CAA. Abishe (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing support as the protests continue to make headlines in international news sources --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing – This is just the sort of topic Ongoing is meant for. If there were a sudden, significant development of course a blurb could be reconsidered. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing per Sca, et al. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing as this is a significant event with ongoing action. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing - Yes to ongoing! Sherenk1 (talk) 10:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional Ongoing if alternative blurb gets changed to protest against and in favour of as protests supporting the bill are also on peak by ruling party and other affiliates.— <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 14:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Harshil169 your comment makes absolutely no sense to me at all. An ongoing has no blurb. If you have a better blurb, feel free to add it in the template above and support your own blurb. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ongoing - this is very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Can shift to ongoing if needed later. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This story was already posted two weeks ago and rolled off. As an ongoing nomination the protests article is terrible, tagged, bad English, proseline, extraneous details about every region, etc.  Has anyone actually read it? Stephen 08:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stephen, I did one round of reading and copyediting (edit: protests article). It isn't that bad... DTM (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article must include loss of public property. Many state governments have assessed the losses and sent bills to the rioters. Without this information this article clearly looks highly opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangid (talk • contribs) 12:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jangid please provide the refs for this concern, so that it can be fixed. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  13:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, here they’re: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/caa-protests-up-government-starts-process-seize-property-protesters-involved-violence-1630471-2019-12-22 and https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/explain-or-pay-for-damage-up-administration-sends-notice-to-26-people-in-sambhal-for-caa-violence-1631638-2019-12-26 . However, so far, only Uttar Pradesh has done this...RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RedBulbBlueBlood9911 and Jangid thanks for the kind note and the link. I have included this into the article. thanks.


 * Support - yes to Ongoing and Blurb. Phoe6 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing only - we already had a blurb. Besides, it looks like the protests won’t slowdown anytime soon, given the fact that they are seen as a protest against the government itself... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RedBulbBlueBlood9911, do you find the blurb not notable enough ? the death number is significant. As Muboshgu suggested, what stops from promoting this as a blurb and roll it off to ongoing if it still continued ? -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  19:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this story was already posted two weeks ago, and subsequently rolled off. We don’t post the same story twice. Stephen 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - for blurb only, as the time progressed and information can be changed I think this article needs to be included in Ongoing section, which is none since Maltese protest was remove from ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.47 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment May I know what is the hold up now ? are we waiting for this to get archived by the bot ?
 * DBigXray, it seems there are some issues on the page (neutrality, grammar and so on). From what I’ve read, there is no reason to not put this in ongoing now, however, so I guess the admins have to get back to editing. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 4-5 editors have done massive C/E on this page. The grammar issues are mostly fixed since the time it was pointed out. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  16:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the so taken step by government of India, seems that there's lack of public awareness in certain sections and is even noticed by the violent and atrocious situations arrived.The Article should highlight the content and should work a assistance to public awareness and lack of efficiency in handling the situation in initial days.

Thanks a million

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the "hold up" is the atrocious state of the article. The "protests" and "timeline of protest" sections need to be combined and the proseline eliminated. Still many grammar issues. There is half a sentence mentioning a protest of 300,000 people with zero detail. Not main page ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that you want "". Unfortunately that is not going to happen, as this current structure has been discussed on the talk page and as per consensus, preferred over other structures. This structure helps readability since events are spread over multiple days and are happening in parallel on several places. You are free to propose and argue the benefits of one over the others. In any case this is not sufficient reason for an ITN Hold up.
 * Thanks for pointing out the "protest of 300,000" I have now included more content.
 * Regarding Proseline and Grammar issues. IMHO they are largely fixed, An admin should check the article and decide. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "In Lucknow, police prevents students of Nadwa University to come out of the campus to protest, leading to clashes.". So, grammar. How many students? Why? For how long? What clashes? What consequences? Why is this bullet point factoid notable at all? The article is full of this stuff and I'm frankly tired of featuring garbage like this on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I copy edited that line. You can read the details at Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests. This is still an ongoing event. Investigations underway and will be updated as and when we have the details. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  10:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also both the timeline and Protest section are organized in chronological order. the Protest section is divided into sub-sections on states that are arranged in chronological order.-- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  19:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Requesting another review since a major copy editing has been done on the article. ping User:Spencer,Muboshgu RedBulbBlueBlood9911 . Marked ready-- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support While I didn't do the most thorough review, I don't see the readability issues anymore others have raised. It's certainly a good article and a significant event. It'd be in our best interest to post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing (Oppose blurb). This was already posted earlier this month and has rolled off, so if there are continuing newsworthy events connected to it, then Ongoing is exactly what covers that situation. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing. I !voted above, but I think there's clear consensus above to post it to Ongoing, and that the quality issues were resolved. And nobody else has actioned it. If anyone thinks that's an incorrect call let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan

 * Question had Pakistan not played a match in their own country in a decade or Sri Lanka had refused to play in Pakistan for a decade? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * LaserLegs, latter. -- Happy Holidays! ᗙ D Big X ray ᗙ  21:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe this nominated before and rejected. --M asem (t) 04:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous discussion was here. Seems to have been a combination of the topic not suitable for ITN and quality of target issues—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Had SL cricketers been killed or they stayed away for decades, I could see the case here. I realize that editors from Pakistan and Sri Lanka will see this as callous, but in my view as an objective observer, the attack was not that bad and the lull was not that long.    GreatCaesarsGhost   18:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD: John Cain

 * Support References were very shabby, great job! --Canley (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent article. Well sourced. Can't see any reason for delay on this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I changed the death date in the article to 22nd, since it was reported on 23rd source that he "died overnight". Unless it's a timezone discrepancy ...
 * That date of death seems very hard to pin down. The ABC source that the article and you have used is the only one I can find that goes close to giving a precise date, and all it says is "died overnight". We cannot tell if that means before or after midnight. What I can see happening now is that a lot of other sources will begin to post whatever we write as the date as fact. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Canberra Times says "died on Monday", but that could be a "date announced" assumption. May have to wait for a death notice. --Canley (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that we have the death notice, it says "in the early hours of 23 December".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to just post, but will let other eyes verify the death date change I made.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - added another (Australian newspaper) source that states died on Monday (23rd) Joseywales1961 (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mr. Niebla

 * Support Solid sourcing, good story, no glaring Spanglish. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Far too much of the article is about the fights and championships he "won". In pro wrestling, this information is telling us nothing more than what scriptwriters at the time decided his character would do. It tells us nothing of the person who has just died. It's the equivalent of discussing the activities of characters an actor played in movies or plays, as if they actually happened. Not an acceptable article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Thoroughly sourced Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise it had been assessed as a Good Article. That's seriously ridiculous. How can a collection of acting scripts become a good article? Not a good look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So I am sorry to see that you think this is the appropriate platform for you to get on a soapbox. Your non-policy based point has been clearly made, how bout we let other people chime in? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is non-policy based about my Oppose comment? Do we really accept the scripts of pro-wrestling as somehow describing a person's life? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do point to the policy that supports your oppose based on the fact that the article is "too much about his career" - would you lodge a similar complaint if an article about a golfer is primarily abou their golf career? if an article about a career military office is primarily about their army career? If the article on a politician is primarily about their political work? Please show me that policy and i'll happily withdraw this nomination on the spot. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Misrepresentation is a crappy form of argument. At no point have I said that the article is "too much about his career". Of course we write about the successes of a pro-golfer, because they would be real. The "successes" of a pro-wrestler are not. They are created by scriptwriters. There is a massive difference. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The successes, while you might consider them to be created by scriptwriters, are due to the wrestlers' ability and drawing power, so it's not like the wrestler is removed from the equation. As such, even a fictitious championship is an accomplishment, as it is an acknowledgement that the promotion has enough faith in them to make them a face of the company. I would argue, therefore, that it is not as empty as you claim, and that the most talented performers rise to the top, much like in more "true" athletic competitions. However, we're getting distracted from the fact that the article is considered sufficiently notable for posting, and it has already been reviewed for quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I misrepresented anything, I presented your argument in a different context and you didn't like it. So let's compare them to actors - except here he played the same role since 1994 basically - So championships could be considered the same as awards, appearing on major shows = "Special guest appearance" etc. his in-ring achivements is to a degree a result of his skills, charisma etc. not that different than an actor. Are you saying that the article on actors with a 30 year career should not include the awards someone voted for him to get (not won "competitively" after all), not include supporting or starring roles in shows and movies? is that not, generally speaking, what an actors career section covers? So yes here he gets in the ring and pretends to want to injure his opponents, no different than getting on a stage and do Shakespear, no diffent than guest starring on the Golden Girs, no different than being a space cleric with a fantasy weapon - except he played that role day in and day out any time he was in public. And you never cited any actual policy, so as it stands it is your personal opinion and nothing more. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "...championships could be considered the same as awards" Utter nonsense. The championships only exist because someone wrote them into the script. Never the case with awards. There is no way that article deserves to be "Good". HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So again more clear hostility towards the subjet matter, but nothing policy based. Thank you for confirming that there is nothing but your personal opinion behind the objection. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, completely wrong. I have no feelings either way about the subject matter, but I know that the article supporting this is a load of total rubbish. That IS a policy based issue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * An even stronger Oppose ...based on new information added to the article today. See Mr. Niebla. It tells us that at least four different wrestlers have used the ring name "Mr. Niebla". That makes the nomination of the death of just one of these people and linking it to this article somewhat problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolding three separate votes from a single person seems like it's designed to mislead others. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted even though HiLo48 doesn't like it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN is supposed to encourage people to read our best articles. Sensible readers will laugh at this one. It's like going back to the 1960s when people believed pro-wrestling was real. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ahmed Gaid Salah

 * Comment: Is there any information about him besides recent events? Otherwise the article does not appear to have good coverage of the subject.  Spencer T• C 00:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal 2019 Maltese protests

 * Remove No updates for the past week.  Spencer T• C 15:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still plenty of edits over the last few days. I say lets keep it on for a few more days at least.BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ref improvements and reactions. This article about protests is not being "regularly updated with new, pertinent information" --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most recent substantial update is for 16 December (even though the events on that date are very mild) and the oldest ITN item is from 17 Dec. Per WP:ITN, Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.  Spencer T• C 00:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Also seems to be out of the news now. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Everything seems to have subsided. – Ammarpad (talk)
 * Crystal_Clear_action_edit_remove.png Removed—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi

 * Comment Article should be better structured to identify the trial and sentencing here. Also, the list of purported names in "Alleged perpetrators" seems like a BLP violation per BLPCRIME, unless they are those that have been part of this sentencing. --M asem (t) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are a part of this widely popular case. 17 of them are Sanctioned by US Treasury. I have noted this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as a major contributor of this article. Article has excellent sources, upto date and contains all the info a reader needs. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Section on the sentencing could use some more expansion: e.g. reactions, impact, etc.  Spencer T• C 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the constructive feedback. I have expanded the section and included major response.  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  20:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The verdicts have attracted widespread criticism for convicting the hit men but allowing the high-level organisers to walk free. This needs to be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW may be of interest to you. No comment on the nom --LaserLegs (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW may be of interest to leading human rights groups around the world, as the internal affairs of RSA often are? The article should just report what they say, because it's in the news? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood your comment. Sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support significant development that is in the news, but Martin is right that we should also mention of the widespread criticism of this verdict. Lepricavark (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . But by all means, please feel free to draft an alternate blurb. El_C 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  23:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * credits given by User:Ammarpad. Thx. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ammarpad - you've only given credits to one of those listed. User:Octoberwoodland and I are still waiting. Spokoyni (talk) 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ram Dass

 * Support Solid article.  Schwede 66  21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a bit more for those who may not know of his work. Ram Dass' importance in both the 1960s counter-culture and the 1970s western understanding of yoga and perceptional consciousness training is very notable, and his book Be Here Now influenced many in the same way Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi had done for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - The article is indeed solid, with strong references in all sections except “Works” which will require help before posting. Jusdafax (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have made some clean-up and polishing edits in "Works". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support good work. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  12:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Only 1/4 recordings and 1/7 films cited. Let's get a majority.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just able to add cites to three of the films, and can attest to one of the recordings, but as with many "counterculture" figures there's not going to be a lot of main stream coverage of the recordings and films. IMBD covers some, and sales sites others, but the New York Times, not so much (unless an obit mentions some). Hopefully this be might be enough to add Dass to our recent deaths mentions. Even with little main stream coverage of his death (probably not yet added to the CNN crawler) the page has gotten hundreds of thousands of views since he died. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw a couple on Amazon. Probably ok.  Strike oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Tony Britton

 * Support Tony Britton was a prominent and well-known British actor who had a long career because he periodically reinvented himself. He was a leading man in films in the late 1950s; a character actor in films and on TV in the 1960s and early 1970s; and a sitcom star in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. Alanrhobson (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Needs more in-line citations for verification. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Cuba

 * Support Per nomination as it is ITN and a story of significant global political impact. Dr42 (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per DR42. Very important news in political world. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. It is a remarkable developing news but yet he didn't contest in the elections to become the PM. However it is still a major news in Cuban politics. On the other hand, the article has just been created and need more expansion. Abishe (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article's in realtively decent shape, and it's covered by most of the major news outlets. ——  SN  54129  14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As both BBC and CNN are reporting, this is mostly a ceremonial position: the power of the Cuban gov't retained in the Communist Party and the President. --M asem (t) 14:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. Reuters quotes govt. as saying PM will be "the administrative right hand of the president." – Sca (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - historic. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Basically a stub. The article is not a biography. It is basically a press release. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, consider this support if/when article is improved. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Thomas Chandy

 * Oppose – Not widely covered; lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RDs are not evaluated by their "significance", but by the quality of the article. If the article is ok the RD is approved. ALL people with an article on Wikipedia are considered notable and/or significant enough for a RD.--SirEdimon (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is true, but the death does need to be reported in reliable news sources. Not a question here for Times of India. --M asem (t) 03:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Needs improvement to sourcing. We do not need a separate WP:CSECTION for unindicted allegation. Allegations are levied against politician daily. I doubt it even has due weight in an article this short. It reads like a minor accusation that was blown out of proportion because it is recent. The man lived for 72 years. Is this thing that happened in the last 2 years worth 1/5 of the article space? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Emanuel Ungaro

 * Comment: A few unreferenced sections.  Spencer T• C 05:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 FIFA Club World Cup

 * Oppose I think football has enough coverage on ITN already, and this is not a significant enough competition. P-K3 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is the most important club competition on football world. Second, this is ITN worth, please check WP:ITNR.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not ITN/R, so I am free to oppose on significance. And it is nowhere near as important as the UEFA Champions League which gets much more attention. P-K3 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FIFA World Cup is ITNR, FIFA Club World Club is not.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'd agree with Pawnkingthree, although in one sense this is the ultimate prize in club football, being a tournament for the winners of the continental cups, it doesn't actually have the prestige of the individual UEFA and South American events. It also doesn't look like we posted it last year, and I don't recall seeing it any other year either. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability (I leave others to judge quality), despite it not being ITNR, and despite it receiving less attention than the Champions League in much of the world (though Latin America, or at least South America, may well be an exception, as may some of the other countries whose teams are taking part). But that's seemingly WP:systemic bias, a bit like saying that we should not report the British or Brazilian elections, or elections at the UN (to give another instance where the world is deemed less important than some of its parts), because we supposedly have far too much politics anyway and because the US elections receive far more coverage (yes, I know most such elections are ITNR, but that's not really the point). In this case it is likely to be of interest to more of our readers than usual because it's a rare case of an English team winning this cup (which, incidentally, is probably part of the reason why we didn't post it last year). To those who might say that's systemic bias in favour of an English-speaking country, my reply is that in this case any such biaa is legitimate because this is after all English Wikipedia (I would not expect, for instance, German Wikipedia to omit stories of interest to their German-speaking readers on the basis that this is bias in favour of such readers). I might perhaps add that this year, unusually, I was more interested in this cup than in the Champions League (because that was an all-English final this year, which is less interesting than English v Brazilian), despite me being neither English nor British - and I suspect I'm not alone among our readers in having felt that way. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - The only clubs that win this competition are European teams or South American teams, and we already post when those teams qualify to this tournament when they win their respective continental championships. Furthermore, the manager of the winning side had several quotes justifying the value of this tournament to the press, found in this article on BBC, implying that the tournament is looked down upon enough that he felt he had to justify its value.  That said, this is technically the ultimate competition of club football, and FIFA treats it this way, even if the fans do not, so it's only a weak oppose. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Klopp's above-mentioned comments are because the tournament is looked upon with contempt and hostility by some elements in Europe (tho not the remaining 90% of the world). The fact that the BBC chose to show the final live in prime time on its main channel (BBC ONE) suggests that this contempt and hostility is not shared by huge numbers of ordinary fans (and Europe's excellent recent record in the cup suggests that major European clubs like Real Madrid now take it seriously too). This does not mean that they regard it as more important than the Champions League, but if that were a requirement for posting at ITN, then about 90% of our ITNR sports items would have to be removed (and huge numbers of non-sporting events would also have to be removed), etc. Incidentally the last Cricket World Cup to be held in India (about 4 years ago, if I remember right) chose to market itself as 'the Cup that matters', presumably because many in India think the T20 world cup is more important, but we quite rightly did not use this as grounds for not posting (nor even for removing it from ITNR). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on notability and ask where to propose proposed this for ITN/R (here - there are single-country and continental club competitions, yet not the World club competition, that seems counter-intuitive). Main article is updated with final, though more prose on final is in the separate article on it. Kingsif (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There is no final match summary in either 2019 FIFA Club World Cup or 2019 FIFA Club World Cup Final. I would support if the article on Final had a summary. We've had a lot of non-sports news recently. Doesn't hurt to have this posted. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Soccer receives plenty of recognition via ITN/R events. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The Club World Cup is not highly regarded in the Anglosphere, in part because of its format (a straight knockout with byes for certain confederations). When the new format debuts in 2021 and the tournament becomes a quadrennial event, I think it should warrant a place in ITNR.  Sounder Bruce  06:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Peters

 * Support Referenced and good depth of coverage of subject.  Spencer T• C 17:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Nice well referenced article about an important football player 46.7.236.180 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - the career stats and honours sections are unreferenced at the moment. Rest of the article looks good enough. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I've added a number of ref's and fixes. I ref'ed the honours section which Amakuru noted. The career stats haven't been ref'ed but I don't think we should be worried about that. I am happy with the article as it stands. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted If anyone wants to remove the appearances section, that's fine, but given that this is a well sourced article, I'm unconvinced we should be worrying about that. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could someone give me the "credits", please?--SirEdimon (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Creation of United States Space Force

 * Oppose A United States Space Command was created in 1985 and there was an announcement by Trump about this in August. It's not clear that this is any more than an administrative reorganisation.  What's the practical impact? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is more than an administrative reorganization. A new branch was announced on 20 December. This new branch is of equal status to the Army and Navy. This is completely different than a command being shuffled around for bureaucratic purposes. This new branch will have its own uniform, song, march, rank structure, etc. It's as independent from the Air Force as the Marine Corps is from the Navy. This hasn't been done since 1947. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its own song!? But it doesn't actually have one yet, right?  I see that people have been parodying this for some time – see Billboard, for example.  This seems to be similar to Trump's wall on the Mexico border – more of a work-in-progress than a discrete achievement. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, note that Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker has been the top-read article on Wikipedia for several days now, because nobody cares what ITN thinks about it. That's something that actually exists – you can go to the movies and see it yourself whereas Trump's Space Force seems to be like Reagan's Star Wars; an aspiration rather than an actuality. "No one’s ever really gone." – Luke Skywalker. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The funding already exists as this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress, and a Chief of Space Operations has already been appointed. The comparison to Reagan's Star Wars is incredibly weak. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  23:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Act of Congress is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which is a huge bundle of programs, policies and pork for the Department of Defense. There's lots in there such as items for cyberspace, for example.  A bill of this sort is passed every year and we would need a good reason to highlight particular items in it. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "There is established a United States Space Force as an armed force within the Department of the Air Force." Last time something similar to that was said, the Allies had just emerged victorious from World War II. It's been over 70 years, hardly the annual occurrence you make it seem to be. I'm not sure what everyone else isn't getting. Congress has created a new branch of the Armed Forces. It's as official as it's ever going to get. This rarely ever happens, and it reflects a major change in American military policy, and how it has been affected by changing technologies. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  00:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Emerged victorious from World War II directly due to extremely real and important air superiority of armed forces. No such clear and present danger this time, just similar in that they're new branches and the press is concerned with the commander-in-chief. Almost a whole other scoop, 72 years later, each with its own official and imaginary merit systems. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is going to be at least a year of administrative setup before there is actually a separate branch. It would be better once the Space Force is officially the 6th branch, as right now, all activities will be under the Air Force. --M asem  (t) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It already is a separate branch. It's true that they have allotted 18 months to fully separate the branches, but the official separation has happened. Everything from here is purely administrative. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  22:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not fully separate. There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member, only that they are part of the Space Force division under the Air Force. In 18 months a lot can change (and this also potentially is where the impeachment process may come into play, to revoke such programs after the fact). When it is actually separated, then it might make sense to post. But as noted in these articles, this is not the first national-level military-directed space agency anywhere, so I don't see why calling out the US version is necessary. --M asem (t) 23:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "There is no person right now that can say they are a Space Force member..." In that case, we should definitely edit the lead to John W. Raymond, which reads "John William "Jay" Raymond is a general in the United States Space Force..." --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  00:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that this has officially been sanctioned by an act of Congress. It's unlikely that same Congress is going to revoke it just because Trump happens to be the President that signed this into law. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  00:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Another step of Trump solidifying his political legacy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose another Trump fake victory that will never be funded or really implemented. At most it's a reorg of the air force and another big government expansion and waste of public funds. Let me know when Mars leaves the UN. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Trump news, we have enough. As space war news, it's too soon, still feels "fake". I'll support when the first drop of blood is vaporized (rebel, robot or imperial). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time any nation has created a space force, making this a historic milestone. Weak support because it's not the first time space-related weapons have been destroyed, see e.g. anti-satellite weapon. Still, if other countries respond by establishing their own space force, not posting this would be a mistake. Banedon (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation

 * Support Appears to be a pretty landmark case, Supreme Court verdict. Kingsif (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per historic landmark case/ruling.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Could someone fix reference 11? It doesn't point anywhere.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea where the "Black 2005" source is but I found the original (or least versions of) of the documents that it was sourcing, so bad ref 11 is now removed. --M asem (t) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Historic case. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No article about the case itself? Gotitbro (talk) 06:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Oddly named target, a 2,500-word piece, is too general and broad. This Netherlands ruling is more than halfway down in it. Needs a separate article. – Sca (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While there is probably enough details for a separate article about the case, the news is not so much the case but the fact that we have an affirmed highest-court ruling that climate change impacts human rights, which is the whole point of the term "climate justice". --M asem (t) 16:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs a stand-alone article for the case.  Spencer T• C 17:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Standalone article created and looks good; kudos to User:Masem. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - Agree with Spencer. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Separate article has been created, blurb updated. --M asem  (t) 01:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest removing "Climate Justice" piece as a target, leaving only State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. (Unwieldy article name could be simplified, though.) – Sca (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Sca.  Spencer T• C 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing "climate justice" (as I wrote the case article, I think it needs to be tuned towards "climate change litigation" to be a bit more neutral, but that would take more work). Not sure how to reduce the name, as not familiar enough with how Dutch law cases get shortened. (Could it be "Netherlands v. Urgenda?" not sure?) --M asem (t) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "2019 Netherlands climate ruling" – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * alt blurb. The newly-created article has been stable, and there was sufficient support already beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the term "precedent" accurate? Are lower courts in the Netherlands bound by prior cases? Is the meaning of the word "precedent" in Dutch law different from its generally understood meaning in common law, the legal system used by the majority of English-speaking countries (considering that this is the English Wikipedia)? feminist (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Boeing Orbital Flight Test

 * Weak oppose On the basis that if it successfully got there, on something really bad happened, it would definitely be ITN-worthy, but this is a bit of a boring nothing in between both. Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The failure of a crew-rated spacecraft is "boring"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong but I don't believe it is yet crew-rated(hence the test flight). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing effectively happened? It missed the target, when reaching would be interesting. It didn't blow up or set on fire or otherwise cause injury. A blurb isn't "thing was supposed to happen but didn't", you know? Like "guy was going to break the world record but fell short" isn't worth a blurb unless there's an independently interesting reason why. And per standards of ITNs for space exploration, I think only a successful flight & rendezvous warrants a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support First paragraph needs a reference.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Test flights generally should not be ITN, even if the eventual purpose is to carry a manned payload - unless crew are already aboard, as with the fateful Apollo 1 test.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Pretty sure this falls under ITNR of "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". The equivalent would be the first landing of Buran or the Space Shuttle. Also, this specific flight had enough drama/anomalies to make it more notable, and it's the first time a ground-landing was done by an American entity.  2601:602:9200:1310:B8D2:9472:B23:A690 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is 81st launch of the Atlas V rocket. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But the first orbit of the Boeing CST-100 Starliner.--WaltCip (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Polish judicial disciplinary panel law

 * Wait Per the article, not yet passed into law. Unless however the protests from this decision rise to an ITN-notable level of posting.  Spencer T• C 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Evo Morales

 * Oppose - They need to catch him first.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Seems to be an incremental part of a larger story which has not yet reached its climax.  The big two aspects here would be 1) When he was deposed (already posted) and when (if) he is convicted (hasn't happened yet).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for a conviction. An arrest warrant is not enough to justify an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Obviously. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose They did it a while ago and are not going to get him. IMO the next ITN-worthy Bolivian politics post would be Morales dies or the elections that Áñez keeps pushing back. Or Áñez arrested. Who knows. Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose though I think if he was actually arrested it might merit posting as former heads of state are not often arrested. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait The situation is speculative at this point. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

 * Wait for a longer plot summary that has actual refs (can you do that? Seems odd to be ok with several paragraphs of prose based on some attendees recollection). As a cultural story, this is as worthy of posting as any literary award, article is pretty decent otherwise. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * -whimper- ... Oppose. Yes, Star Wars is a cultural phenomenon, embedded into the psyche of the Anglophone world (primarily the U.S.) but we do not post blurbs of a movie's premiere based on that alone, unless it's coupled with the smashing of a major global record. In fact, I can't imagine a single instance where we would post a premiere of a movie sans a record-breaking - perhaps Stanley Kubrick coming back from the dead to make a movie?--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless and until something newsworthy aside from the release happens. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose lets leave such blurbs (i.e. blurbs of a movie's premiere) for the tabloids. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the mere release of a film. Iff it breaks box office records, then we could consider it for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

State of emergency declared in Australia's New South Wales

 * Wondering if it should also mention the "record-breaking heatwave" with the record set on Tuesday and than broken the next day. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The first day of the tour match between New Zealand cricket team and Victoria had to be cancelled due to the extreme heat conditions. The heatwaves are quite significant this time around as they have caused to postpone/reschedule international and domestic sport events. Abishe (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Adjusted a bit. Definitely notable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Misleading title and blurb. The state of emergency is only in one of Australia's six states, New South Wales. It covers only slightly more than 10% of the country. I won't support the current blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Oops it is my error and I just included NSW in the blurb. Abishe (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Although there have been "only" 6 fatalities, these bushfires are notable in that they have been ongoing for over a month, and have only grown larger during that time. Furthermore the air quality in Sydney has been at hazardous levels for many days since early November, with flow on effects to residents' health and the cancellation of various events. Chrisclear (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "Australia's New South Wales" sounds very clumsy. It's unlikely a blurb about Arizona would say "The United States' Arizona". I added an alternative blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Need clearer indications of impact. State of emergency is as much about becoming prepared than a measurement of incurred doom. The California wildfires in October/November did not get posted; a state of emergency was declared there.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - News from that region of the world tends to be rare on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be less of a problem if more editors (not just Australians) worked to prevent such nominations falling off this page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, seems better suited to ongoing as a topic, though I note the current target article is rather sparse; many sections consist of a single sentence and it needs a lot of expansion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is NSW's second State of Emergency (first one for this fire season was in November). This isn't a typical fire season, in NSW the season typically starts in mid-late November north of the state and early-mid December in the south, this season started around August and ramped up in September due to drought and above average temperatures. In a season you'll see one or two big (major) fires but so far I have lost count. I do know that approximately 2.7 million hectares has been burnt so far.
 * The blurb needs more work, I would help but I'm off on a deployment in a few hours. Bidgee (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Gigantic, intense fire situation that's been and continues to be widely covered by RS media. (Record-breaking as a compound modifier of temperatures is hyphenated.) – Sca (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose in current state (though significance is met). Have any of the support votes actually attempted to read this article? The NSW section first has a few paragraphs, each about a different fire. Then a few graphs in summary of the whole season, Then more graphs each about a different fire! Then more summary! This isn't an article; it's research notes.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment, the article simply isn't up to scratch - it's a list of events, some of which are unsourced and many of which are out of date, with one line in the lead saying "A state of emergency has been declared". We can't put that on the front page at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...for now. Maybe this is linked to the wrong article. 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is just this year's ongoing article about the season's bushfires. Such articles are typically a mess for a while, often being contributed to by enthusiastic, new editors unfamiliar with our conventions. It will be in poor condition for some time yet. Bushfires in southern states are usually worse in January and February. These articles are cleaned up later after things settle down. The problem is, I don't know what article to point to that will be in good condition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Target suggestion Agreed that it's an inappropriate target for a main page item. All of Australia is not on fire now. A model might be like 2019 California wildfires, and even that has individual links to specific fires, and is not proseline for the entire state.—Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Two firefighters killed. We really shouldn't be ignoring this topic. (Two sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the second comment you've made in this nom arguing this event is significant. No one is disputing this - the objection is quality. If you are passive-aggressively arguing that quality should be ignored, be less passive.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not 'suggesting' anything of the kind. Be less disparaging. I do suggest that some of our Australian colleagues familiar with the topic and the country work on the article. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why just Australians? And this article is not likely to become stable enough to support the nomination in the time-frame required. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment As has just noted, we need a better quality article to support this nomination. I have already pointed out further up this discussion that the linked article, 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, is unlikely to become a quality, stable in the time frame we need. As its name shows, the period it covers extends into next year. It covers the whole country, ten times the area involved with the subject of this nomination. Fires are only just now firing up (sorry) in the southern states of Victoria and South Australia, and the southern part of Western Australia, and will continue through to at least April next year if past years are any guide. It's the kind of article that attracts new and enthusiastic but unskilled editors. It just isn't the right article. We obviously need an article on the declaration of the state of emergency if we are to follow our guidelines. Or, and this is the biggie, accept that this IS a major news item, and should not miss out on being posted just because nobody thought of situations like this when they wrote the guidelines. If we can't do that, we perhaps need to rethink the headline on our main page. After all, this definitely IS In the News. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Homo erectus

 * Comment On first blush, this seems to fail impact. It's been known for decades (and been postulated for over a century) that various Homo species were contemporaneous. The breakthrough work in the last few decades was establishing that they were co-located and intermingled as well. The actual story here is that it brings the most-recent date for (specifically) erectus forward by ca. 200 ky (to 100 kya from 300 kya). On one hand, I'd like to see stories like this get Main Page featured. OTOH, this is pretty "meh" even from someone who works close to this field, and the article is not great.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest changing blurb to give an actual timeframe. "Comparatively recently" is meaningless. The article is of high quality. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Current blurb is also a close paraphrase of the BBC subheadline..—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any updates in the article. This is a must before we can discuss otherwise this ITN-worthy story. --Tone 10:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support different angle We've known humanity has been brutally attacking rainforests for a while, but now we "know" the rainforest killed our best cousins. Every last one of them! This changes everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agreed with above that "comparatively recently" is a phrase that is useless at best, and recklessly misleading at worst. Would prefer to see a more concrete timeframe.--WaltCip (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added an alternative blurb based on the BBC article. User:GKFXtalk 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article has not been updated, no clear text related to this story in the target article. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is incremental, and based on a sketchy dating method. We know that Homo floresiensis arose about 100ka on a nearby island, and their ancestor was probably H. erectus. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted, Ongoing removed) Impeachment of Donald Trump

 * Support and we can pull it from ongoing until the Senate trial starts --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Image suggestion can we fair use this Associated Press image of Trump next to George Nader (businessman)? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support Extremely historic day, and with only 8 minutes voting to go on the first article, its looking definite that Trump will be the third president ever to be impeached (finally!). <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 01:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it's internal to the US and part of a two-step process, but this is making so much news worldwide I think we should blurb it anyway. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong support -- this is as much breaking news as the impeachment of any head of state. However, while his impeachment is all but certain now (needs 218 votes, at 208 at time of posting), we should wait until it actually passes -- Rockstone   talk to me!   01:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update Trump just became the third U.S. president to be impeached. 2 Dems and 1 Repub broke ranks. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 01:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Did a Republican vote yes? Amash is an independent. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's only 1 indep vote at the moment but the Repub vote got removed a minute ago. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 01:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Headline news in what I'm guessing is every major and medium news outlets. Really easiest support. Juxlos (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support...but wait until final results come through and the second vote is held. This is obviously notable, though. &#124; abequinnfourteen 01:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The second article has passed as well. Master of Time   ( talk ) 01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb. &#124; abequinnfourteen 01:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Historic day. Only third time in U.S. history a president has been impeached. Master of Time   ( talk ) 01:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update Article II just passed. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 01:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support: Only third President in U.S. history to be impeached, obviously major news. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready marked ready, this one seems obvious for a blurb, at least no one has commented on ongoing. You're involved but since you're around if you wanna post you may as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Historic moment. House is adjourned, both articles passed. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 01:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  01:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, incredibly historic to get impeached at all, let alone be the first impeached during the first term. Going to be in the news all over the place. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support HUGE news. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is one of the most important American political events of the last few decades. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 02:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not counting all the wars, sure, it's up there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously. Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support even if slightly pile on and per above -- a la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  02:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Extremely Weak Oppose solely on article quality. The background section is under referenced. Fix it and we should be g2g. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With how much traffic the page is getting, this problem will probably fixed in like 3 seconds. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted and Removed the ongoing on the basis that once this blurb falls off, the ongoing would likely go back on - at least, after Congress reconvinces in Jan and the Senator takes it up... (assuming they do).  Trump image just added to prot queue. --M asem  (t) 02:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should the picture be updated to be of the US President? -- Rockstone   talk to me!   02:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Has he been sentenced to death? Why not wait until then before switching pictures.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but the top blurb gets the pic. It's in the protection queue now. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you include political death under that definition, then yes. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How many times has he allegedly commited suicide now, six? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now image is protected, so image swapped. --M asem (t) 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Historic. Davey2116 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb requires a clarification that Trump remains with 100% of his prerogatives until the Senate vote. I believe many countries besides US have impeachment where the person is actually temporary suspended until the trial vote. Or at least the locked linked article should clearly state that.  205.175.106.160 (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably something to comment on the talk page of the article; clarifying all the details in the blurb would be too long.  Spencer T• C 04:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The altblurb that was posted gives the impression that there's more to come. --M asem (t) 05:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Comment Forwarding to Senate may be held up apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 05:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Suggest that we modify & bump the current blurb with the Senate's vote results, when they come in. Admins, please note this recent RfC.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Senate is unlike to be voting on this anytime before 2020 - the House wanted this done before Congress leaves for holiday break. By that point the blurb will clearly have rolled off, and we'll likely have put back the ongoing on the impeachment hearings. But 99% likely that either way the Senate votes on conviction, we'll post (even if they fail to convict, which is likely expected). --M asem (t) 07:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anybody opposed to changing the blurb to "President Donald Trump is impeached by the United States House of Representatives, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress"? The present blurb ("charging him with") grammatically seems to imply that Trump charges himself, although the true meaning is clear from context. Another way to make this clearer would be "The United States House of Representatives impeaches President Donald Trump, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress".  Sandstein   08:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I went with your first suggestion &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting suggested re-word - Trump isn’t impeached until the House articles are sent to the Senate. Suggested re-word: The United States House of Representatives votes to impeach President Donald Trump. CoatCheck (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * False. Trump is impeached. An opinion article and Fox News aren't the best sources to prove any points youre trying to make. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-Posting Support: Present wording is fine as it is. Sleath56 (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Herman Boone

 * Not sure the nominator understand that he will be posted to Recent Deaths as long as the article is updated. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that... my point being that IMHO this deserves more than just an RD mention. 2601:187:4581:7F50:A4EE:F954:9CC6:6166 (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * RD only. He was important for the local area, but wouldn't be as known nationally without the film.  Blurbs are typically reserved for deaths where the death itself is an event, or for world-transforming figures at the tip top of their field.  Neither is the case here. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No blurb I genuinely understand and appreciate how high school football can seem larger-than-life in some states, but most readers grew up in the real world instead. To them, a coach is just a sort of teacher. A better-paid teacher, but still pretty common. Scoring a movie deal is universally cooler, but only goes so far. Gets you a blurb nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only, per 331dot. The only sportsperson I can remember being posted as a blurb was Muhammad Ali.  (There may be others I've forgotten, but that's the level we're talking about). Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gretzky's getting a great one someday. But yeah, Ali was the greatest. The Great Khali will likely be an exception to this unwritten "great" rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't unwritten, see WP:ITNRD. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the rule about assuming greatness based on a person's clear and present moniker. Generally holds true, but there'll always be pretenders. Khali was good in the lesser The Longest Yard, but that only goes so far toward immortality. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * RD only Nowhere near as notable as "top of field" people. Juxlos (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RD and RD-ready. All statements in article are sourced.  p  b  p  01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only, obviously. P-K3 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only. Even if we were to consider a blurb, the current ones listed are absolutely laughable in their use of loaded language and puffery. WaltCip (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not absolutely "funny" yet. Remember when Jesse Owens was misdiagnosed as a "civil rights champion" for running against the backdrop of Hitler looking stupid? What if...no...we'd get cancelled. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I dread the day John Lewis dies. That is going to be one hell of a contentious ITN nomination. Gives me flashbacks of John McCain's nomination. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then let that fear guide us toward eradicating the orange menace at the heart of his activism, before people hear about him for the first time! By us, I mean you guys. Wake up, verifiers! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * RD only per others. A respectable coach, but lightyears away from being a world-transformative figure required for a blurb.  Article seems to be in good shape for RD. EternalNomad (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only, obviously. both local and national history - are you aware it needs to be of international relevance? <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 04:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Citation formats No impact to the merits of posting, but the inline page number referencing format used (i.e. the colons next to the footnote marker e.g. ) is rare and confusing enough, but then the page numbers in the inline text and the citation don't even match. Ideally, the citation would not need any page number with this "style". Perhaps anyone with access to those offline sources can resolve the page number conflicts.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. Looks like someone misinterpreted pages to mean the total number of pages in the source. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geulah Cohen

 * Support Looks to be well referenced. P-K3 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good but the lead can be expanded. Gotitbro (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zafar Chaudhry

 * Looks good. I'm not familiar with that citation style (e.g. :217[1][2]) and it looks incorrect. Please can you look into that? I've added one cn too. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping if the primary ref I placed would be sufficient. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am tired and need some sleep so I can't help with this. However, the problem is that rp needs to go after the  instead of before  . Another issue is that an editor appears to have misinterpreted pages in cite book to mean the total number of pages in the book. Weird this is the second time I have seen this mistake today. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have placed the page no. after the refs end but haven't checked the pages= within the refs. Hoping it ain't something that'll hold it from being posted. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the rest. But there is a small gap in the biography. Can you add when he returned from exile in Canada? He fled to Canada in 1974 but returned to serve in Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and died in Pakistan. But when did he go back to Pakistan? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – This is good enough to post. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 16:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyrus Mistry

 * The absence of any mention of the ongoing saga in the target article makes me hesitant to go against standard ITNC practice of ignoring the internal machinations of corporations, regardless of their size.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...a controversial company fired someone? I don't see how this rises to the importance of ITN in any way. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited lasting ramifications.  Spencer T• C 19:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems a bit too minor. 100 billion sounds big, but it really isn't that big given that there are many companies bigger than it (e.g. Apple, which has roughly $1 trillion market capitalization). Banedon (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose People are fired and reinstated by companies everyday. We recently declined to post Aramco's IPO (A trillion+ company), and I believe even Apple-related news must be something extraordinary for it to be posted. So being 100 billion+ is not even a good  argument to start with. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I commented on the recent Alphabet Inc CEO nomination, I cannot think of any company where a change in the CEO rises to ITN levels of significance. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerome L. Singer

 * Support - sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the references are not independent &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MSGJ. The Hartford Courant obituary cited reads like a paid posting as well.—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your change only replaced the Courant obituary with pretty much the same one from Legacy.com. My original comment was simply an extension of MSGJ's point about lack of independent sources. Paid obituaries are not forbidden, per se. Quality is a concern w.r.t. NPOV if the article is not backed mostly with independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This and this may help. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is also this festschrift, but I think one of his sons was one of the co-editors. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * & Added more independent sources. I kept the Courant for his death section only as I think it is appropriate as its an obituary. Other than that, more independent sources added thanks to ! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I added C&C's NYT article for good measure (and future expansion, perhaps). Sufficient indy coverage cited now.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 16:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Pervez Musharraf
*Support: Though it should be made clear that he isn't in the country and the sentence will not be immediately carried out if at all. Gotitbro (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits. A former head of state being sentenced to death is certainly notable. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppo support – First, I want to say holy shit! But the article needs more of an update to the body. There is no mention of a conviction for treason in the body. Suggested a better blurb. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support; Damn, you don't mess with the Pakistani judicial system. I believe this is very notable since a former head of state is sentenced to death. I would just like this to be mentioned more in the article. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 09:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added a new heading Death penalty in the article. I have been updating it and thank you for rectifying my error and for modifying the blurb. Abishe (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose - Article is not completely referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be clarified that he was sentenced in absentia. He is in Dubai, which may not extradite him (sice Pakistan and UAE do not have an extradition treaty). --NSharma21 (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The sentencing of former army chief and former President is highly significant moment in Pakistan where the powerful military has ruled the country for nearly half of its 72-year history. Even if this penalty is not going enforced but this is a bold decision and sign of powerful judiciary. --Saqib (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose clickbait blurb until concerns pointed by NSharma21 are fixed. This alone may have no impact as he is not a captive in Pakistan.Musharraf is free in Dubai and  he will likely never return and is dying of cancer anyway. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per NSharma21, wait to see if he's deported/extradited to Pakistan. Historically, quite a few politicians have been sentenced in absentia, without effect. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose since he is in a country that is highly unlikely to extradite him. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 100% agree with what and  say regarding the issue. I was not initially aware of the fact that he was residing in Dubai for over three years before nominating here. Actually it made me to nominate here when I reviewed the awaiting of pending change request for the article where I saw one of the editors added the info regarding his death sentence in the top section. Then I searched for it whether it was true or false and later confirmed it through reliable sources. Now I feel it won't be easy for Pakistan to extradite him from the United Arab Emirates. The news will develop in coming days. But I am feeling suspicious about  because their contributions to Wikipedia mainly include edits to ITN section. Abishe (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as per Saqib. This is very significant event as military is considered above law in Pakistan. They pressurize everyone to impose their decisions. This was a tough decision as they delayed the decision using Islamabad High Court. Wikipedia should not censor this decision. Störm   (talk)  15:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lean support still reading the article, but the fact that he was sentenced to death in absentia says as much about the kangaroo nature of the "special court" as it does about his acts as PM. Article is actually really thorough and so far I haven't tripped over anything outrageous. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's both currently a top news story, and quite rare, that a former head of state is sentenced to death. It would be sloppy on the readers part—not the blurb's fault—to misinterpret that he's already dead, or that it's a guarantee of what the next actions will be. The sentencing itself is major news, regardless.—Bagumba (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs to be clear about which country this was made in and where he is now. I also think we need a blurb that captures the fact that he is in exile, and that this penalty is effectively moot unless he is focused back to the country. --M asem (t) 16:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have fixed some issues regarding the blurbs. I am not sure whether there is a strange relationship between Pakistan and UAE. Its simply because Pakistan played international cricket matches in UAE and adopted UAE as its home venue. Hope this extradition would happen as this is related to high profile treason case. Abishe (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb - should mention he is in exile.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment added an "Alt blurb III" with suggestions from everyone. Although I still dont agree we should be posting this, but if something has to be posted, it better be informative and non clickbait.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that Alt3 would be best if post we must – but this is not a Support vote. – Sca (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Clickbait is false advertisement. While his whereabouts might arguably be "informative", there is nothing misleading in a shorter blurb saying that he is sentenced to death.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Every headline from various news agencies that I have seen does not list his current whereabouts. It's in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bagumba obfuscating major plot details, that basically negates the whole story, is the kind of clickbait that tabloids do, not encyclopedia.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view of "major plot detail" differs from actual headlines of reliable sources. See samples of headlines below.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agree with Andrew, this is unlikely to have any impact on this former head of state or even the current ones. Inconsequential in the end. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just another show trial with no effective impact. There are numerous corrupt politicians all over and we should save our energy for the cases with impact.  There's another Arab Spring brewing and developments in 2020 are expected.  It's the revolutions and regime changes that matter, not inconsequential items like this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the headlines of seven sources listed in the nomination: "Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf sentenced to death for high treason" (CNN), "Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan ex-leader sentenced to death for treason" (BBC), "Pakistan's Former dictator Pervez Musharraf sentenced to death in high treason case" (Economic Times), "Pervez Musharraf Sentenced To Death In High Treason Case: Pak Media" (NDTV), "Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf handed death penalty in treason case" (Al Jazeera), "Pakistan sentences former dictator Musharraf to death in absentia" (Reuters), "Pervez Musharraf: Pakistan sentences former ruler to death for high treason" (The Guardian)—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: In absentia Some commenters here insist it's misleading to not mention it, believing it's informative and exposes the ruling to be toothless. However, according to The Washington Post, he's been receiving medical attention since leaving the country, and reportedly is seriously ill. Giving the blurb the impression that he's a fugitive obfuscates the real story of the sentencing by omitting mention that he's ill and likely to die while never being allowed back to his own country. Keep the blurb focused on the current sentencing, not on future speculation. Use the original blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * waiting for 7 missing citations; otherwise this has sufficient support to post &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * citations have been added.


 * Support plus modified altblurb2, incorporating the newly created article. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to have modified every blurb, including changing "president" to "dictator." Why was that?-- P-K3 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Although both are applicable here, but I note that most of the media houses e.g. CNN, NDTV are calling him president. so President seems to be more apt. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have undone the "dictator". I think Alternative blurb IV is best. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support remaining citations added now Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The conviction is one thing, but it's sensational to say he's sentenced to death when we know that sentence is unlikely to be carried out.   GreatCaesarsGhost   01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But impeachments in Western countries that are not expected to result in conviction is news. OK.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If by "impeachments in Western countries" you mean a formal proposal to depose the holder of the most powerful position in the history of the world, YES; I would think that more significant than this.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He's talking about the position where you need to spend millions of dollars for a four-year term, only get it if millions of people have your back, are constitutionally limited to two terms and can theoretically be kicked out early if a few dozen lesser politicians choose so. Nobody's considering overthrowing a monarch, religious supreme, multinational chairperson or bank governor. Nor seriously wanting Trump killed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Anyone can be killed. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . I'll get to the credits later &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can the blurb be modified to incorporate the Musharraf high treason case article that is now fairly developed? --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The format of Musharraf high treason case is pure proseline, thus below the quality standard for linking from Main Page at this time.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Basil Butcher

 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Good to go. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed "ready" I was going to post, but found a couple of unsourced paragraphs with lots of stats references at the end of Basil_Butcher. Being that this is an RD, mention that he was ill is important too (and even better if his death is moved out of the lead (MOS:BLPLEAD)—Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have added the missing refs. The death is out of lead and long illness added. -- D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  14:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

 * Support Alt blurb. The CAA has caused massive outrage and protests all over India. 5 trains and several buses burnt. Thousands of people arrested. covered by Media accross the world. The AfD nom has already been withdrawn and is heading for a Strong Keep.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I was in the process of writing up this nomination and you beat me to it. Banedon (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Me Too. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose protests are tagged for deletion, citizenship act article needs the usual ESL copyedit ("Internet was shutdown in the north-eastern state of Assam and curfew declared in Assam and Tripura due to huge protests") --LaserLegs (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and copy edited it. The AfD nom has withdrawn and is heading for a Keep. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Both articles look good, and this is a prominent story in major news organizations. Prefer altblurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . El_C 13:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks El_C, can someone post the credits.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done by Amkuru-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have now added this free image to the nomination, can the ITN pic be updated? I think we have seen Boris for a few days now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: The protests article now shows deaths as 15. DTM (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Number of deaths has increased to 24 now. Please update. -Nizil (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Monique Leyrac

 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage of the subject's career. A single sentence describes her career in the 80s and aside from 2 awards she received there's no information about what she did in the 90s. There's enough information out there that the article notes that a biography was written about her.  Spencer T• C 23:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What she did in the 1990s is this newfangled thing you might have heard about called retirement, which people tend to do in their 60s and 70s. Neither her article on fr (slightly but not significantly longer, but with fewer footnoted references than ours) nor her entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia (which is cited as a footnote in our article) say that she did anything in the 1990s but collect a couple of lifetime achievement awards either — and the French article even has "Années actives = 1948-1989" right in its infobox. So the article not containing information about her career in the 1990s is not a flaw in the article, it's "she was retired and didn't have a career in the 1990s for us to write about". Bearcat (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies; the article was not clear regarding when she retired. Even then, the only thing the article has about her career in the 70s is an award she won and a documentary about her, so my point still stands, regardless of when her career occurred.  Spencer T• C 16:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insufficient lead to start. Granted the page is small, but the lead should have a few hightlights from her career.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can be updated from the French article (but its lead isn't in a great shape either). Gotitbro (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) 2019 Hong Kong protests

 * Pull Things have calmed down a bit and the orange tag is a main page showstopper. That needs to be resolved before this can be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull – Looking at the talk page, I don't expect the orange tags to be resolved quickly. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull Less activity recently + orange tags that need to be resolved. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I find the constant attempts and counter-attempts to list/delist this article rather funny. Next time we have an "ITN is broken" discussion on WT:ITN, I'll be sure to bring this up. Banedon (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * AGF. If not, discussing it could be at the risk of WP:BEANS too.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about this nomination, it's about something else ( if you're interested). I really find it rather funny, considering that this article was posted to ongoing even though it was orange tagged because an editor said it wasn't warranted and removed the tag. As I mentioned, the next time we have an "ITN is broken" discussion on WT:ITN, I'll be sure to bring this up. Banedon (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull LaserLegs' personal quest finally comes to an end. The current state of the article leaves too much to be desired for it to be a main page article right now. I'd support putting it back up if/when the orange tags are resolved. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 07:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Orange tag comment (from uninvolved editor) The NPOV tag is linked to the discussion at Talk:2019_Hong_Kong_protests, opened since 6 December. If I had to close that thread now as an admin, it looks like a no consensus. Wouldn't "no consensus" on an NPOV issue mean that it really is generally neutral already? Also, it does seem that a polarizing page such as this could always have some viewpoint "missing" and be tagged as "NPOV".  The presence of the tag itself might not be an automatic showstopper for this specific page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * from ongoing. No opinion on the orange tag. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing removal 2019 Maltese protests

 * Pull Things have calmed down a bit and the orange tag is a main page showstopper. That needs to be resolved before this can be renominated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull – Looking at the talk page, I don't expect the orange tags to be resolved quickly. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Orange tag comment The NPOV tag, added 15 Dec, links to Talk:2019_Maltese_protests. So far, the two people who have commented (other than the tagger) have stated that more specific on the NPOV concerns are needed to justify the presense of the tag.—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose pulling. The orange take seems to be without merit, as the discussion seems to show; there have been substantive events that have occurred recently, which are in the article and in good shape (Dec 13 and Dec 16).  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What substantive events? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The December 13 events take up 4-5 paragraphs of text, which is more than sufficient. The December 16 events have much less, but the December 13 stuff was only a few days ago.  Give it a few more days and see if anything else develops.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I saw lots of text there, but I'm asking "what substantive events" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes the events substantive is that source texts which can be used to update Wikipedia are covering them as though they are substantive events. My personal feelings, familiarity, opinions, or interest in the events has nothing to do with my assessment of substantive, which in the context of Wikipedia relies only on what is written in Wikipedia and what is written in reliable sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose The subsection for 13 December is quite substantial. There is another subsection for today. I also agree with User:Jayron32 about the neutrality tagging being debatable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull While there are some continual updates, they do not rise to the level of ITN-worthy postings, and thus it wouldn't make sense for the article to remain in ongoing. Future blurb-worthy items should be nominated as such, and then if that ages off the template, an Ongoing placement would then be warranted.  Spencer T• C 16:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that for an item to remain in Ongoing, each update to it should be the equivalent in significance of an ITN posting in its own right? I don't think we've ever operated that way.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but that's the reason that the Ongoing section was originally created (the Olympics, so that Olympics-related items wouldn't clog up the section). My definition for In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. requires that there is some sense of notability to this information, that there would be consideration to posting to ITN as a blurb. For this item, where an NGO makes a request to the president and there's a relatively small vigil (in the context of broader protests), this does not rise to meet that minimum.  Spencer T• C 23:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * NPOV tag removed I've removed the tag for now. Discussion can continue at Talk:2019_Maltese_protests to identify actionable concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anna Karina

 * Support I think everything is sourced now.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I don't usually comment on RDs but there was only one support prior so I'll agree, it's good to go (though a bit list-y near the end). Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir convicted of corruption

 * Support posting about a former head of state convicted of a crime related to their role. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nitpick? Financial irregularity isn't illegal; he was pinched for money laundering. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppo support Agree with InedibleHulk. Also this is a BLP and there are several uncited claims in the article. The article body has also not been updated to indicate the recent news. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Everything is appears fully sourced now. I have added a lot more RS over the past few days to ensure verifiability and update the body. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely significant. But "corruption and financial irregularity" is just verbose.  Added alt blurb. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose - I feel that if this were truly notable, wouldn't there be a separate article covering this conviction/sentencing? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC); Edited 04:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no rule that says something is only notable if it has a separate article. Splitting is done based on whether the main article becomes too long to handle it, not based on whether some incident is notable or not. At almost 100 kB of length, the article might indeed need a split (WP:SPLIT) but probably more for the ICC trial than this one. Regards So  Why  13:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a minor story with no significant impact – he lost power in a coup months ago and is not going to jail even now. Compared to other stories such as the extension and failure of COP25, it's too petty and local. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Who says he's getting out of jail? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He is going to the ICC after this. Even the U.S. has agreed to send ambassadors to Sudan, for the first time in 23 years. This is a feat in the Sudanese transition to democracy. I wish people would stop treating ITN like a competition. We should have posted something about COP25 because it was significant news. We should also post this because it is significant news. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The BBC explains that "under Sudanese law, people over the age of 70 cannot serve jail terms. Bashir is 75." So, all the proposed blurbs are inaccurate.  If the ICC does something then there might be more of a story but that's speculation. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sheila Mercier

 * Support - I fixed a few ref issues and I can't see any others.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . I note that although she died on 4 Dec, this was only reported on 13 or 14 Dec &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Danny Aiello

 * Comment - A few ref issues, that could be easily fixed. The filmography, is mostly unreferenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've cited about 90% of the filmography, if someone wants to take a shot at the rest.—Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sourcing is much improved and generally sufficient now.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed and &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Samoa Measles Outbreak from Ongoing

 * Remove addition was good at the time, but the news about this seems to have died down to just statistics updates. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per above. It does seem like the only recent large updates have been the addition of citations, but little to no prose. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Any analysis of whether the article has been updated needs a time frame. The time frame of consideration is since 9 December (the date of the oldest current blurb). Since 9 December, there have been significant updates to the article. Maybe it should have been a blurb, but that is spilled milk. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove the only requirement that actually exists is that the article be "continuously updated". The target is getting sporadic updates with minimal new information. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not true. WP:ITN also says "Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." Continuosly updated is a useless description unless we define how often? --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * for now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Brexit

 * Oppose Yes, with the election done, the UK gov't will turn back to Brexit, but let's wait until we know what the next steps are. --M asem (t) 06:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Masem How does the next steps matter now that Brexit is officially back on the agenda? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 provides a good rationale. We know Brexit will be on the table soon enough, but unlikely before end of the year. When they reconvene next year, I fully expect Brexit to be the big point, at which point we can judge better about an ongoing news item. --M asem (t) 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Boris Johnson has just won with the slogan “Get Brexit done” and so it’s back on the agenda again, with the clock ticking for a deadline of end-Jan. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The article is in much better shape than when it was last removed. I would be very willing to support, but there are (rather curiously) CN tags. Most of them are for historical things which should be easy to resolve (and by my recollection, those lines DID have sources in the earlier version). However, one is for a direct quote, which is a showstopper for the Main Page.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Now that the Tories have won the election, Brexit will get through much easier.  I'm wondering if we should just wait to post passage of the withdrawal bill and/or something on January 31 when the UK actually leaves. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully expect some miraculous and totally unforeseen thing to occur before Jan. 31, which results in X more months of delays, which results in some other confounding thing, and so on. How many deadlines has this already blown through? In short and contra CRYSTAL, I think this is going to be ongoing for well more than 7 weeks. I'd prefer blurbs, too, in any other case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.3.203 (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Tories have that large a majority, the opposition won't be able to stop Brexit. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Other than 1-2 lines about the general election, there's not much written in that article from recent weeks. Not enough updates to justify posting to the ongoing link, and we're already covering the election in a blurb.  When something worth writing about happens, we can do another blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's extremely easy to say that Brexit is a foregone conclusion now that the conservatives have a majority, but we should still avoid massaging crystal balls whenever possible. Let's wait for the actual politics to start.--WaltCip (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Boris says by Jan. 31. Mutti says unlikely even by the end of 2020. Whose vision is ... 20/20? – Sca (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think a blurb when the next substantial event happens would be better.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm taking a "wait and see" stance on this, as the article currently is not being updated much. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The article suggested is a listicle of events and way below the standards of a good encyclopedic article. The timeline section should be converted to prose. Let's not make the same mistake twice. This sub-par article does not deserve to be linked from the Main Page. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Scheer announces pending resignation
Nominator's comments: Andrew Scheer is the leader of the Conservative party of Canada. The conservative party won the popular vote in the 2019 Canadian federal election. His resignation annoucement is being discussed in the news, which is why I thought this would be relevant here. I've never contributed to in the news before... I've tried to make sure that I've done everything right when it comes to nominating an article, but it's possible that I've made a mistake since I'm not familiar with the process. Clovermoss (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thanks for the nomination- the resignation of a party leader that fails to win an election (in this case, the majority of seats if not the popular vote) is standard procedure, and this case it is an announcement of a pending resignation, not the actual resignation. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Justin Trudeau is still the prime minister, but Scheer recieved more votes than Justin Trudeau did, with 34.41% support compared to Trudeau's 33.07% (according to the 2019 Canadian federal election article). I just thought it was worth mentioning because you can win the popular vote and fail the election. Anyways, I don't particularly care whether it's part of in the news (you probably have a better idea of what fits and what doesn't). Clovermoss (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose popular vote aside, Scheer is not the Prime Minister of Canada. I cannot remember a situation where ITN posted a political resignation of a non-head of government/state (in fact, I don't really remember any examples of it posting resignations at all). --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 00:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just a local politics. If we start posting "resignation of party leaders", then I am not sure what ITN would become. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks EV. – Sca (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - News is too localized to be featured as ITN. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While sudden and dramatic and significant for Canada, resignations of party leaders who are not sitting heads of state or government are not notable on an international scale unless it indicates political repression, which is not the case here. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Winter Deaflympics

 * Thanks for the nomination. ITN is not for merely spreading awareness about things; we feature articles that get coverage in the news.  Do you have news stories about this event? 331dot (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually I am unable to find sources in English and are mostly available in Italian language. I just added a source in English language in the template. I am sorry for the errors and I have nominated articles like this before. Abishe (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for article content do not need to be in English, but what ITN is looking for is evidence that this is getting coverage in the news- and to a certain degree English language news, since that's what most readers here get for news. The chances of this being successful are low without such news sources. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I appreciate the work that has gone into the article, however I'm not seeing widespread news coverage of the events which would indicate the level of significance necessary for ITN requirements. I see lots of little local papers writing about local athletes who plan to compete in the games, as in here but nothing that indicates that this has the sort of widespread coverage in major news sources that put this over the threshold for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You could try DYK or perhaps OTD for 21 Dec? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Appears to be very a niche sports that struggles to get mentions in mainstream media. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A worthy event, but one that has received no attention from mainstream media and does not rise to the level of significance necessary for ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The what? (Okay, as for serious review, I haven't seen or heard of this from anywhere.) Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 United Kingdom general election

 * No need for ongoing, the results will be in soon enough, and we will post that. --Tone 14:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, this will be over in a day, too short a timeframe for ongoing postings, and we'll have results shortly to post anyways. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per, A new blurb can come up when we have the winner.  D Big X ray ᗙ  15:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment.  I think you misunderstand the purpose of Ongoing- which does not have blurbs; it is not meant to feature any event in progress, but to feature an article that has incremental, continuous updates over a long period of time.  General elections are on the ITNR list(recurring events list) so notability is not at issue, this will be posted as a blurb when the result is clear and the article has a decent update. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Tone. ——  SN  54129  15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to go ahead and just convert this to an ITNR listing, though it's certainly early. I've used the Tories as a placeholder since the general consensus seems to be that they will have the most seats and the chance of a Labour majority seems remote- but again, it's just a placeholder. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case Oppose for now as the article has not, as yet, been updated with results. When I have something to judge the quality of, I will return to do so.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the placeholder blurb and replaced it with a true placeholder. It is not appropriate to 'predict' the result of the election here (it is entirely possible no party will have an overall majority), certainly not while voting is still in progress. Can we please not do that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I was not predicting anything, simply posting the general consensus of reliable sources, which is something that is not uncommon here. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the placeholder based on exit polls, but the results still need to come in. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Oppose for now as the results are pending and no need to mention under ongoing events. When a clear winner is announced I will support it and the blurb is yet to be updated. Abishe (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - obviously don't post this right now, as the result is only based on an exit poll. But assuming it's confirmed, and the article has no issues, this will go straight up when the result's confirmed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because by the time somebody decides this is "ready" and then it's finally posted, the results will be confirmed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, there is NO prose in results section but it was still posted? The section is not even filled. Is it because it is a UK election? Too much bias! Only 1 support? - Sherenk1 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats a major oversight. This really should be pulled until the results get prose with it, but I don't feel we also need the disruption over pulling it. --M asem (t) 06:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the wait opposes as delayed supports, given this is an ITN/R item. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled pending consensus to post. While posted in good faith, that was clearly premature given the state of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an ITN/R item. When I posted it, the result of a Conservative majority had been confirmed, the image had been protected and I checked that there were no cn tags. I felt that this was one of those cases where the article was one that would be rapidly edited and improved and posting was justifiable. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN/R means a consensus has already been obtained as far as notability is concerned. It does not mean we post a shit-quality article to the main page, even if there is the expectation that it may be fixed later. WaltCip (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * it was a solid B class article, with no cn tags. I stand by my decision to post. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your decision to post. Now we're just slowing down the process to post for no good reason. How long until another editor decides this is worth posting again? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No idea what shape it was in when pulled, but the article has several paragraphs of prose describing the results; everything is in the right tense. Looks fine for the main page right now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously I can't post this again, so I'm supporting it now. Should be posted ASAP. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ready to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re-posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is still no prose discussion of the full results. We expect this for sports and other elections, UK elections get no special pass here. --M asem (t) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was scant prose on the results at the time of the original posting, but some had been added to to the lead at the time of the re-post. There is still no prose in the "Full results" section. (Merely observations, meant neither as a support or oppose) —Bagumba (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see three full paragraphs of the results, as of when I supported, which are still there. Of course, improvements are welcome, but that should be sufficient for posting on the main page.  I would not, despite your insinuation, opposed posting any other article on the main page with a similar amount of text, and I did not give this a pass because it was the UK.  Your accusations against me are entirely unfounded, and quite insulting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I still see no prose in the results section! Sherenk1 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Then you have no one to blame except yourself. You should get on that!  Remember, Wikipedia articles only get better because people who want them fixed up do it themselves.  If you want it fixed, and don't do it, it's only your own fault and no one else's.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in the intro. The article has been updated with prose, that's all that matters.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that was my observation when I re-posted, noting the support !votes above. Yes, it would definitely be preferable to have a full write-up in the body too, but it's not a requirement for ITN as long as there's something written, and it's sufficiently well-sourced etc. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. We have rejected posting dozens of elections for exactly this reason. We have undone years of consensus and accepted practice at ITN/C. This is really a disappointing IAR. By posting this, you have disrupted the normal operations of this project. You have put us in an impossible and unsolvable situation. You have made us all hypocrites. If you were desperate to post you could have written 4-5 sentences in the Full results section. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if we feel this strongly about the presence of prose in the results section of an election article, we should put it in writing. There are multiple project pages dedicated to both general criteria and criteria for recurring items when it comes to posting - neither currently state that prose is required for election results. The situation is not unsolvable. If we want hard rules, we can hold and RFC and change the elections section of the ITN/R criteria page. I'm not defending the posting of this blurb, just pointing out something that may need to be done to prevent a similar issue in the future. It's not hard to put precedent into writing. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not need written rules about every criterion for what we believe is a quality article. We have a general quality standard. Years of discussion and failed nominations have established precedent for what is a quality article for ITN. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not true that I have opposed articles in the past for not having text in a specifically named section, which is what you just claimed is the problem. I've only ever opposed similar articles for lacking prose, not because it wasn't exactly organized a certain way.  It is extremely upsetting that you first accuse me of doing something I've never done, and then call me a hypocrite for doing the thing you accused me of doing which i never actually did.  Please stop your un-called-for personal attacks against myself and other editors who also voted to support this and who also did not do the things you accused them of doing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate change

 * Oppose Target article has no information on recent events, which is a bare minimum for ANY posting (blurb or ongoing) to ITN. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32. Additionally, if we posted this to Ongoing, wouldn't it be up there for at least the next hundred years? ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Until there is consensus to remove it, just like any other ongoing item. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be a topic of perpetuity, there's clearly no "end" to it (well, until the human race ends up extinct from it). This is not what "ongoing" is for, it is for topics that are supposed to have some type of conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. --M asem (t) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If there is an article to feature that is more focused on the current events, I would be open to that, but this is far too broad. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Greta Thunberg addresses COP25

 * Oppose posting the mere giving of a speech by someone who is not a government official able to announce a significant policy change or initiative. I closed the aforementioned discussion as there is no arbitrary minimum discussion time and a clear consensus against. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If one wants to post something about Greenland, they are free to nominate it. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) 331dot rushes to oppose even while I'm still fixing up the entry but what's the rush? ITN is currently devoid of news and so we can take a full day to let everyone have their say. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you addressed me directly instead of acting like I am not here. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - What's the news though? We rarely ever blurb people just giving speeches, as shes done several times before. I feel like this is too similar to the below nomination and can be opposed for similar reasons. Additionally, neither a slow rotation of blurbs through the main page nor low readership on those articles is reason to support another article. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I think at best this would be an ongoing post, however, I don't see that the article has enough regular updates to even qualify for that.  If it were more detailed on the events of the conference itself, and looked as though it were likely to receive clear updates on a regular basis throughout the conference, I could possibly support an ongoing post, but this is not really a great blurb.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder to the community, COP25 was nominated, opposed, and closed last week. Only pointing out for those who may have missed it! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose person makes speech to other people=dog bites man. ——  SN  54129  13:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not even the New York Times is covering this, and this sort of thing is their bread and butter.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See extensive NYT coverage just yesterday, "Greta Thunberg on Tuesday in Madrid, where United Nations climate talks are taking place." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Maybe she could have Skyped in, instead of actually travelling there.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well of course she didn't fly; she spent three weeks on a catamaran. No carbon footprint there.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Addressing the UNCCC isn't notable itself, and doesn't really mean anything. However, I wouldn't be opposed to more creative proposals on including Thunberg on ITN right now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Much as I find the peripatetic Ms. Thunberg interesting, no, this speech in itself isn't significant. Nor should we stress her unsurprising selection as Time 's "Person of the Year." Let's not join the chorus of adulation making her into a media luminary. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Inates attack

 * Oppose orphaned disaster stub. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. While the stub is cited well, it is unfortunately too short to be featured on ITN. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Very light on text.  Would need to see a big expansion before I could support.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Greta Thunberg Time Person of the Year

 * Support Article is in great shape, recognition on the front page of Wikipedia richly deserved.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait. Should Greta Thunberg's article be the target article?--SirEdimon (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we usually post Person of the Year? Kingsif (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked, it was nominated twice in the past in 2010 (Zuckerberg) and 2006 (You) and in both cases was shot down. Maybe others. This nomination should stand on it's own though. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is great, but we posted the climate strikes in September and we had it in ongoing for a period of time -- that was the news story, Person of the Year is magazine fodder. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per LaserLegs. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – magazine cover story with the rationale for the winner boiling down to "they were in the news a lot". For example, elected US Presidents are named Person of the Year before even taking office. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This sort of thing was cool when Time was where people got their year-in-review fix. But everyone has an opinion in December now. Quite a few of these channels and websites dwarf Time in popularity, including Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not denying she deserves it and its an incredible recognition, but we have traditionally never posted the Time Person of the Year before, and we shouldn't do it for just this case. --M asem (t) 03:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting of Time person of the year awards in general. Limited lasting notability or designation of someone at the top of their field (as with other prizes, such as Nobels or sporting trophies.  Spencer T• C 05:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks any long term notability, as does the winner. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: David Bellamy

 * Comment - the article looks in reasonable shape, although the last two sections are rather under-referenced. A long list of positions and awards, the majority of which are unsourced. RIP to Bellamy, he was a bit of a fixture on the TV in my youth! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - flurry of recent edits have brought the article up to scratch.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - still a bunch of unsourced claims; the date of death was both unsourced and wrong. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Date is now correct and sourced. Honours and awards still lacking some sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject's article got 82000 views yesterday – more than all our blurbs combined. Given this level of readership, what I made sure was that the picture was sorted – the thumbnail was being squeezed too tight when I found it.  Sourcing such a prominent person's extensive history of appearances is mostly busywork because few readers care about such details. By the time all that is sorted out, few people will be reading the article and so it's wasted effort.  But if we each have our different priorities then, between us, the page is made more presentable.  Many hands make light work... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Making Wikipedia articles better is not busy work, it is literally the only reason we should be here. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds about right. A prominent person will get huge page views, regardless of article quality. When the article has finally been "improved enough" to be listed on Main page (about 2 days later usually), most interested parties have already read it and are more interested in the next news headline. I'm not sure the rationale of "directing the reader to high quality articles" really works for RDs. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think it's impractical to fix all of those uncited claims in a short time, simply delete them from the article. They can then be added back if and when sources are found, and Bellamy could appear in the RD section. Right now there are still too many uncited claims to justify posting on the main page. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Information that is likely to be true and relevant should be WP:PRESERVED.  Don't do a disservice to readers merely to get an RD.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose David_Bellamy cites IMDB, which is generally unreliable for this purpose (External_links/Perennial_websites). The section also has a citation to this basic search query from BBC, which is vague and insufficiently verifiable. No opinion on this either way, but is such an exhaustive list to non-blue link (i.e. non-notable) programs overkill?—Bagumba (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Attack on Bagram Air Base

 * Oppose A couple of things - 1) This should be nominated under In the News - it's an attack, not some specific person dying. 2) Current Events doesn't necessarily correlate to on the ITN page. 3) The first blurb is a bit too short, but the second is too long. Pie3141527182 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is too short, just at the stub level. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stub. Two fatalities. Significance marginal. – Sca (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Calling this a skirmish would be hugely inflating its importance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Saudi Aramco

 * Comment Consider the graphic at the top of this article, comparing Aramco with the other giant market cap companies. Pumping a company on thin volume to achieve pro forma valuation is a trick used in the private markets (recently and famously, the We Co.). The P in IPO is supposed to stand for "public", and the extent to which the public can trade on Tadawul is very limited. Per Tadawul's rules: "Tadawul permits only established institutional foreign investors and not individual investors". This would have been a bonafide IPO had to happened on the original venues: NYSE and LSE, which allow world-wide access, but that was withdrawn in part due to concerns like the above. All that said, it is available to the public through derivative funds like ETFs, and the valuation is what it is on Tadawul, and extrapolating that value through the other 98.5% of the shares (which are NOT public) gets us to around 1.9 trillion USD. So, the blurb is technically correct although we have to do violence to common English to get there.130.233.3.203 (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - the valuation is indeed what it is - with over $25 billion publicly traded. That $25 billion alone makes it a large company, even ignoring the other $1.6 trillion (or more?) which is not part of the float. In September 2014, the (then-record) Alibaba IPO was posted, so I don't see why this should be any different. Chrisclear (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote for it, but the BABA IPO was for ca. 10% of the company with explicit intentions to float more in the future (it is now about 65%, considered "low" for an enterprise of it's size), and it did it at a venue which allows broad and public ownership, with associated enforcement of property rights. This compares to 1.5% for Aramco, on a stock exchange that explicitly prohibits virtually everyone from participation, and under a government that just a few years ago violently extorted billions from it's own citizens under the guise of "anti-corruption". And the stock has no voting right whatsoever. Like I wrote above, the blurb is technically correct, but we're really stretching the meanings of stock and public and even traded.130.233.3.203 (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Aramco is not wholly public: it is still controlled by Saudi gov't, just that a portion of it was made public by the IPO. --M asem (t) 11:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this matters - the blurb does not state "wholly public" Chrisclear (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb States "largest public company" which is not true because it remains state owned. --M asem (t) 12:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could argue over the semantics of what "public company" means, now that the IPO has been completed. What is clear is that it is no longer 100% owned by the government. Regardless, for the sake of clarity I changed the proposed blurb to state "largest publicly traded company" which is not in doubt. Chrisclear (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would go with exactly what the Guardian stated : "Largest listed company". That only 1.5% of its ownership is now public from this makes it hard to use the word "public" here. I have added alt-blurbs. --M asem (t) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, based off article quality. There is an orange tagged section, Women Empowerment, and the Saudization section reads poorly, needing some copyediting. Personally, I'm not sure this is super newsworthy, but since Chrisclear pointed out that we posted Alibaba's IPO, I will support if others do and article quality is improved. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have also at least improved the IPO section on the target article; this was connected to the drone attacks from September 2019 so had a few pieces to add from that. --M asem (t) 14:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per mike_gigs. While the news is clearly covering this event, the quality issues he notes needs to be fixed before this could be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our struggle to find the proper superlative is quite telling. It would no doubt be noteworthy if SA went public, but it hasn't. If this is not "stock" nor "public" nor "traded" in the conventional understanding of those terms, from where do we derive an investiture of importance? Simply being covered in RS is not sufficient.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – As I understand it – and I don't understand it all – this is primarily a domestic capital-raising program by the Saudi government, since the vast majority of shares have gone or will go to Saudi investors or entities. It's not trading on Wall St. Thus, little broader impact. – Sca (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019

 * Comment Most sources describe this bill as making non-Muslim illegal immigrants eligible for citizenship (the source linked above does this; as does the NYT, and the BBC). That is what the blurb, and the lead, ought to say. I'm still debating whether this is significant enough to post, leaning yes. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . Non-Muslim is generalisation but it should be noted that the bill also excludes atheists, jews and any other than six mentioned communities. So writing non-Muslim would be not true/neutral way of presentation.-Nizil (talk)
 * That's bordering on original research. If we describe the bill, we need to describe it the way reliable sources do; and all decent sources I've seen suggest that both the intent and the effect of this bill is to exclude Muslim immigrants from naturalization. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bill is controversial in various ways, hasn't passed yet and may then be subject to constitutional challenge. The current article is packed full of criticism contrary to WP:SOAP and would need copy-editing just to correct its English.  Immigration is a hot topic in many countries (see current UK election or the hearings about the Rohingas in the Hague).  It's not clear that we should highlight this particular case. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, generally per Andrew. The Criticism section is almost longer that the rest of the article, and there is an orange tagged section. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Mount Patagonia (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the law has actually passed, at least. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the very least, until the law has actually passed. Taewangkorea (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The bill has been passed. Please update the vote count as per new report; initial reports last day confused vote numbers a bit. WP:UNDUE criticism issue has been resolved. (emphasis purposefully added, not WP:SHOUT) &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 03:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It is top news on BBC. The bill is now being challenged in court. Article looks well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until such a time as my concerns with the blurb have been addressed, per my comments above. We need to describe legislation the way reliable sources do, not its supporters (or opponents) in the legislature. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know I have been added to the updaters list, but I guess I can still have a say; and the first thing I want to say is that this article isn't updated enough! There is too much confusion surrounding this bill + the article doesn't explain the Bill well enough for my liking. Forget the protests or who is supporting it.... what does the Bill actually do other than the one or two statements being harped by everyone, how does it connect to the main Act it is amending, what about the Foriegners Act etc etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a source for even more confusion and misinformation. DTM (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Autonomous Province of Bougainville independence referendum

 * Support This is a huge step on the path to independence, and it was almost unanimous. This could be the first new country in the world since South Sudan in 2011.Playlet (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Have not looked into quality. Added altblurb. ― Hebsen (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on quality also, following major changes to the article. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative support but before posting I'd like to see some reactions and follow-up in the article. --Tone 08:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but referendum article needs some work. I think it's notable regardless of whether it happens; legitimate independence referendums are rather rare occurrences.  --Gerrit CUTEDH 09:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Historic. Will likely be the first new independent country of the next decade.BabbaQ (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose for now, no prose update on the results, only a table, and several places in the article need fixes for tense, as it implies in several areas that the vote is still in the future. If those issues are fixed, consider this a full support -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 10:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support based on recent expansion and improvements. Article is both of sufficient quality, and of an event which is being covered sufficiently by reliable news sources.  Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it's a new country. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently. This is step one of several for formation of a new country, and will take time before anything is official. --M asem (t) 12:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's very light on details. Was there no active campaign? No bus plastered with lies? The article doesn't do a great job of establishing the significance. Also it's non-binding which I'd overlook if the article were better. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is a pure ITN material as the success of this independence referendum marks the birth of a new country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent material for ITN, a new country would be huge news -- orbitalbuzzsaw 3:27 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now as there is no prose in results section. Also, I'm wondering just how much weight this referendum will have on the future of Bougainville, as the article states The vote is not binding and the Government of Papua New Guinea has the final say on what becomes of Bougainville. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt-blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with an "Aftermath" section. Please feel free to let me know if there are anymore issues with posting in regards to the article's quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this does not create a new country as the supports claim.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question have any of the supporters read the article? There is no "new country" here. Per the article "The vote is not binding and the Government of Papua New Guinea has the final say on what becomes of Bougainville if the vote is in favour of independence." --LaserLegs (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have only skimmed it, but I did not assess the quality. Yes it is a non-binding referendum (as altblurb makes clear), and it might not create a new country, at least not right away. But it will set the mood for the relation between Bougainville and the rest of Papua New Guinea. It is at least as notable as regular Papua New Guinean legislative elections, which is on INT/R. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for Wikipedia, things that happen here are not based on opinions, feelings, or what we think should be important. Instead, what happens at Wikipedia is entirely based on what is written in reliable sources.  If reliable sources are treating the subject with importance, it is, by Wikipedia standards, important.  The fact that someone can restate the basic facts of a subject, but do so in a tone of incredulity and annoyance, does not actually make the reliable sources go away, so please stop doing just that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've simply chosen to ignore the votes of any editor who thinks that this referendum actually makes Bougainville a new state. Regardless, the referendum is still notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume this is something that needs to be clearly separated from the declaration of independence that might not occur at all. What we identify as notable here is the will of Bougainville's residents to get independence. Whether they will get it is another matter that may (or may not) be discussed at a future point of time. Draw a parallel with South Sudan: we posted the results from the referendum in January 2011 and then again the declaration of independence in July 2011. At the end, most support votes, including mine, don't state that this will surely be a new country but simply comment on the likeliness for it to be born.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just worth nothing that you wrote yet you also wrote . The referendum isn't indicative of anything certain. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The birth of a new country is a long and painful process, sometimes never-ending, built on the grounds of people's will. This referendum certainly lays the foundations for that and it will have major implications even if independence is not granted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support based on the significance of event but article needs some work. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the article, this is non-binding and could take years to actually happen.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support a blurb that combines the two blurbs together so that it is not misleading. It should be mentioned that this referendum is directly related to the peace agreement, and it should be mentioned that the referendum is non-binding. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Over the last few hours, and I have done a lot of work on the article. Prior opposes based on quality should probably be reassess.  ― Hebsen (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Non-binding.--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, oppose nominator's blurb. There's a huge difference between a binding and non-binding referendum. The alt blurb is fine, but the other one implies it's a done deal. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled/reverted - a trout to who posted it immediately after I unmarked it as (Ready). Please discuss first before acting unilaterally. Trying to assume good faith here, but it's highly disingenuous to post to ITN just after I unmarked it, as there is clearly no consensus here. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 10:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw a sufficient consensus to post. It is non-binding, true, but the blurb states that and the actual independence will merit a new blurb. The article is fine. Please discuss with me first before reverting me on ITN straight away next time. --Tone 11:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was unaware that an item was required to be marked as ready before it could be posted. After all, anyone could mark the item as ready. WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the vote right now is running about 2-1 in favor of support. Yes yada yada yada not a vote yada yada yada, but there does appear to be enough that automatically reverting Tone is clearly not supported.  That's acting as a WP:SUPERVOTE; Tone was clearly posting within allowable discretion to post, and you have now just reverted him for no good reason other than the fact that you felt upset that your opinion wasn't followed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The current tally is 15 support and 6 oppose. I think that is more than enough consensus to post (and I voted to oppose and still stand by that vote). Regardless of why it was taken down, I think it needs to be reposted. Saying that having over 70% support is not a consensus to post sets a bad precedent, in my opinion. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote count. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not only a vote count. But the number of votes is a significant factor, and cannot be summarily ignored.  Consensus does require more people to be on one side over the other, and checking that requires some level of counting of votes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support significant event and well sourced article. Per list of independence referendums there has not been a government-recognised independence referendum with a "Yes" vote since South Sudan in 2011, so this is a rare event. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, a significant referendum with a significant result. Article looks good. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Opposing Alt blurb II as "Bougainville Peace Process" here just links to Bougainville Civil War; the article goes beyond the scope of the peace process, isn't the main focus, and hasn't been updated. Reiterating support for Alt blurb I. Also, how has this not been posted yet? Seems like we're just sitting on an established consensus to post. Non-binding doesn't mean not-notable; remind yourselves that Brexit was also non-binding. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * per consensus. I left out "overwhelmingly" because I don't think we should use subjective words like that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Have posted results of prior referendums; article is in good shape.  Spencer T• C 04:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The article does a good job of placing this vote into context wrt the multi-step independence process. Had this not been a stipulated and pre-defined vote within a larger conflict resolution action, I would not have supported. Judging by the above discussion, this context was only recently added, so good job all around!130.233.3.203 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Test cricket returns to Pakistan after ten years

 * Support My summary of the above would be that Pakistan has not been able to play a Test Cricket Match in its own country for ten years, obviously a major disadvantage. This is now changing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously my support has a massive bias! I've put a fair bit of work into this since the tour was announced, and hopefully the start of returning to some sort of normality in Pakistan with hosting top-level teams and matches. And thanks Abishe for the nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 05:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Supporting in general but with emphasis on the fact this is a major event following the terror attack on the team. (It would be akin to putting the completion of One World Trade Center in ITNR) As such, I think the terror attack article should be the target, or a co-target article with the 2019-20 team. Fortunately, that attack article is close - it needs to be updated with this fact, and a couple para without refs (but like 4-5 at most). Note that the current blurb does not link to the suggested target article, so this also needs to be fixed. --M asem (t) 07:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just sorted out the issue regarding the blurb. The prime focus is about the 2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team, which caused major concern that no international teams wanted to play in Pakistan. I can't remember any other major terror attack targeting particular sports team. Abishe (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is good news, it does not rise to the level of international news, especially the continuation of something that had previously happened. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, international news is not now, nor has ever been, a requirement for ITN. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This Australian finds this event newsworthy, as I'm sure Test Cricket fans all over the world do. Test Match Cricket, by definition, is international. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Good news. Not ITN worthy.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Building off what Masem said: >2600 people were killed at the WTC & the new one is the largest building in the Western Hemisphere. Those are BIG things. The attack here was rather modest, and the tour routine. The context certainly gives it greater weight, but not nearly so much to post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion has moved in the wrong direction. The news here is not about a terrorist attack ten years ago. That IS old news, and we're not discussing that attack. The news here is about sport. It's about the fact that an international Test Cricket team, a country, is finally, after ten years, being allowed to play its "home" games on home grounds. I wonder if the same negativity would be appearing if the team involved was England, or the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose any and all, regardless of origin, parochial news of this sort. I think there is an inherent cricket bias on ITN, and I for one would do my utmost to combat it.--WaltCip (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Parochial? It's about international sport at the highest level! If we used "too parochial" as a guideline, hardly any American sporting event would ever be posted here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We posted Sachin Tendulkar's 100 centuries, we posted Pakistan cricket spot-fixing scandal, we had the world cricket whatever in Ongoing for weeks.... --LaserLegs (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I find American Football as boring as batshit. Seriously, these Oppose arguments are all of the form "I have no interest in cricket". Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If we only posted the "highest level" of each sport, that would be fine, but that's not what happens. Even if we just count ITNR events, there's considerable inequity in favor of rugby, soccer, and cricket. But then these three get ad-hoc noms all the time, and we dumb yanks are told how important these three are. We cannot get even a second American Football event posted, but the big Sri Lanka-Pakistan tilt just has to get posted. RIGHT. It's a blind spot in our processes here, plain and simple.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So this nomination must miss out because there have been some bad ones in the past? Please think about that logic. This is about a lot more than a Sri Lanka-Pakistan contest. I'll stop now, before I express any more of my frustration at the high number of stupid comments being made here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support + altblurb - A sporting event that is In The News with coverage from ESPN, NYT, BBC & The Telegraph. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the nominated article is about a sport season. Write one about the aftermath of the terrorist attack, where the games were played instead, what steps led to reconciliation and I'll consider it. The target article doesn't explain the significance well enough for me. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the first time after the attack that an international cricket team has played international cricket in Pakistan. See Zimbabwean cricket team in Pakistan in 2015, West Indian cricket team in Pakistan in 2017–18. --NSharma21 (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not read the blurb properly. Yes I agree that Pakistan has hosted international matches after 2009 but the series were hosted only in two formats One Day International and T20 International. It's the longest format of the game Test cricket which has not been played in Pakistan over a decade. Test cricket has its own pride as it has been played in international level since 1877. I speculate based on your username you should be an Indian and this is not the place for your biased opinions. Please maintain WP:NPOV. If you oppose a thing please follow the way like the fellow editors do. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the reason for not visiting Pakistan was security concerns, the notable event would be the first time an international cricket team visited Pakistan. Whether they visited to play Test cricket or ODI cricket is irrelevant --NSharma21 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I read that post correctly, are you seriously making a prejudgment about someone's motivations (much less nationality) based on their name?--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * More to the point is that NSharma21's only edits thus far are to this page and to blue-link their user page. Not exactly newbie behavior.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on quality; the target article appears to be Sri Lankan cricket team in Pakistan in 2019–20, while the test matches noted in the blurb as the reason for posting this have almost no prose information about them, save a few brief mentions. Would need some prose expansion on the subject to be main page worthy.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support I feel like this is definitely in the gray area of what does or doesn't merit a blurb, but I'll support it given the unique nature of this situation and the fact that it is in news. Lepricavark (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually this discussion has gone so long so far even the first test match didn't long last like this discussion as rain continues to interrupt this historical test match and most importantly the Rawalpindi Stadium hosts its first test after 2004. See this news. Abishe (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's been a long time since i've seen cricket in the news on Wiki. Would like to see it again.--AdillAdell (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Yury Luzhkov

 * Oppose - Sourcing issues, as noted. Please ping me if things change! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but ping me once the referencing issues are all sorted out. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many referencing issues. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  06:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Smith

 * Support - Sourced well enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Chilean Air Force C-130 disappearance

 * Comment We generally do not report on air accidents involving military vehicles carrying primarily active military personal ("line of duty" and all that). The article needs a lot more details to be able to justify this. --M asem (t) 16:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – True re first point, but 38 is a significantly large (presumed) toll, and the apparent crash of this plane has been widely carried by RS media. – Sca (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There seems to be an assumption on this point that is not settled consensus (not addressing that at anyone specific). The point conveyed at AIRCRASH and elsewhere is military craft have more accidents because of the way they are used, & commonality of events is directly linked to diminished significance. But this does not mean that military crashes can never be significant.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the sources are unclear on this point but if the PAX were largely civilian then I think we could IAR this to the MP since it'd effectively be a civilian flight operated by the military. The death toll is completely and totally irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only because the article is a stub. I don't see an issue with the military personnel aspect. People are people and this does not appear to be a war-time operation. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline here --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. That essay has no bearing on ITN discussions. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean ... that essay is used by the Wikiproject Aviation as a guideline for when an air disaster should have an article but you're right, I'll just fuck off and mind my own business thanks C&C --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we please be civil here? Thank you. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is accurate to say that AIRCRASH is not a guideline; you can certainly abide by what it says, but it isn't a guideline. typically the viewpoint on military crashes is that military personnel have assumed a greater risk than civilians by joining the military, regardless of it being wartime or not. It's part of their duties to engage in risky missions and other actions. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that the flight was towards Antarctica, I see no indication that this flight was any riskier than any other flight. AFAIK, it was not shot down. If half a dozen people disappeared on the way to Antarctica, I would say that is unfortunate but not ITN-worthy. But a large aircraft carrying 38 people, I personally believe that is ITN worthy. Anyway, this discussion is academic until the article becomes something post-able. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article is too short. I could be persuaded on significance if it is expanded.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality (size). If it's expanded I'd lean towards supporting. Wholly agree with here. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not formally opposing, but agree that existing article is too thin for Main Page promotion. If more information became available it could be upgraded, in view of likely death tally. – Sca (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Has undergone some additional expansion and meets minimum ITN standards, although more expansion would be welcome.  Spencer T• C 16:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The crash has been located, the deaths have been confirmed and the article has been expanded. Thirty eight is a significant death toll, and there has been important coverage outside Chile. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added an alternative blurb as a suggestion to show that the crash has been located. As far as I know, this was on 12 December, meaning that the only item happening after this proposal is the UK general election, so this one won't be getting stale for the time being. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * have your concerns been resolved? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 02:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's sufficient now.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * . I think the blurb may need improvement but can't think how at the moment. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Laurer

 * Support - Perhaps one or two more refs needed. But easily fixed--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update – I have done some cleanup of the article. He died on 5 Dec but the funeral was on 9 Dec and that seems to be when the story first reached the news media. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems presentable now.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Article could use more expansion but is OK to post. I want to be on the record for saying support blurb. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good enough, but I don't think it's blurb-worthy. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marie Fredriksson

 * Support - Robust article and well sourced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One fine-looking article Teemu08 (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (with "Goodbye to You" playing in the background...) As a musician she was so important to more than one generation. --WiseWoman (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kim Woo-jung

 * Oppose: Article needs source improvements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck Heberling

 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 15:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maurice Mounsdon

 * One of the two paragraphs in Biography section has no reference. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Text expanded and sources added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Ammarpad (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks sourced well enough ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Any more issues to address here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that I can see! Marked as ready ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Short but sufficient.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ... + "is-this-thing-on?"-type comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Lacks information on what he did since WWII, but since it's not what makes him notable, went ahead and posted.  Spencer T• C 05:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sanna Marin becomes prime minister

 * Wait The nomination will have to be put on hold until tomorrow. If the news is further verified I will support. The subject is in work in progress. Abishe (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional oppose I don't remember Oleksiy Honcharuk getting a blurb for the same, but could be wrong. The alt blurb is a bit neater, first being first, but in a more trivial way. Her parents aren't the stars here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Independent of her age or parents, wouldn't she be posted to ITN as a new head of state regardless? Funcrunch (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the President of Finland is the actual head of state, so nevermind. Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The Finnish PM is appointed, so not the result of an election, and (per Funcrunch) they are not the head of government state either. I feel like we may be grasping at straws here, as evident by the two completely different blurbs. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is head of government, not head of state. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, meant to say head of state. Thanks for the correction InedibleHulk ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's any consolation, I could tell it was just your fingers talking. But other people? Not so sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose She is set to become prime minister after the previous one from the same political party resigned, which implies there is no governmental change. As for her age, she is definitely not the youngest prime minister ever and there are even younger politicians who have recently won parliamentary elections to assume the office (Sebastian Kurz, who is younger and already served as prime minister from 2017 to 2019, is in the process of government formation following this year's snap election.). As for the same-sex parentage, it's unclear for me why this is important for a country with highly progressive LGBT rights.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – High-ranking politician but second after the Finnish president if I'm reading correctly, so notability for ITN is diminished. The first blurb is perfect WP:DYK material (evidenced by the existence of Lists of state leaders by age) while the second is purely trivia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit that I am unfamiliar with Finnish government, but it is unclear to me from the Wikipedia page whether or not the president's powers are in actuality greater than that of the prime minister's. If the PM has greater authority, it seems she should be listed at ITN even though she isn't head of state. Funcrunch (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support based on recent comments by Smurrayinchester clarifying the difference between the Finnish President and Prime Minister. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Question Looks like List of current heads of state and government has it backwards then? The president should be green and the PM blue? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems in order to me. Both draw power from the constitution, and the PM (featuring MPs) dishes out the legislative and executive duty. Kind of like Canada, except our head of state is the world's oldest female. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – For the record, the alt blurb about Marin's same-sex parents was added by another editor, not me. Funcrunch (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not impressed with either blurb, they look more DYK-ish to me. I certainly don't see why the supposed fact in them is of any importance either. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Certainly a young age to lead a country, but whilst she's the youngest serving right now, there are have been plenty of younger leaders in the past, including recent examples: Kim Jong-un was 28 when he took power, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was 33, if we stick to elected leaders then Mario Frick was 28 and there have been several recent under-30 Captains Regent. Marin's mother's sexuality does not appear relevant and would be misleading anyway (Marin was born to a heterosexual couple who later split up). A change in government might be a worthwhile blurb regardless of the records, but this was a rearrangement of coalition partners, not the result of an election. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of confusion here about the roles of President and Prime Minster. The President of Finland is a bit more powerful than, say, the President of Ireland or Germany, but unlike France or Russia it's mostly a figurehead role now. The fact that the President technically appoints a Prime Minister is no more relevant than the fact the Queen technically appoints the Prime Minister of the UK - power is ultimately in the hands of the Parliament and the PM. We posted Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister of the UK, I see no reason not to post this. Smurrayinchester 14:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Smurrayinchester our repeated failure to correct this obvious deficiency at WP:ITNR has become laughable. We post utterly powerless figure heads to the main page "because ITNR" and it's way past time to fix that. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the two supports above. The Finnish president is clearly mostly ceremonial and it's the Prime Minister who holds real power. This is no different than when we posted Boris Johnson or Bill English becoming PM despite there not being an election or change of governing party. This change in leadership has been widely covered by news sources around the world, so there's no principled reason to oppose on that basis (as opposed to say similar changes in much smaller nations). The focus of the blurb should just be on the change in prime ministership and maybe a mention of the postal strike instead of trying to squeeze in some heavily qualified special reasons (e.g. youngest currently serving Prime MInister, first child of LGBT parents). Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb II – the appointment or election of a head of government is as important or more important than the head of state. The article quality looks good. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurbs are trying to get around the non-ITNR aspect of this event by incorporating her age, parentage or recent strikes. Made clear, this was not a change in PM due to elections. Further, the government did not change. This is an intra-party reorganization in between elections. I consider highlighting someone's personal characteristics (age, parentage) to be incredibly degrading, because it insinuates that her major accomplishment has nothing to do with her actual work. The recent strikes, which I got to experience first-hand, were very tame compared to what we usually post. The impact just doesn't rise to the level that I would support.130.233.3.203 (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think the change of a prime minister without a general election is blurb worthy. (I don't think I supported the Boris posting either).-- P-K3 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's still in the news; I was just reminded by coverage on the BBC. What we think of this personally is irrelevant per WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (as proposer): Can an admin close this? I'm guessing it won't get posted at this point, but I'd like to know one way or the other. For the record, I question the WP:ITNR policy of posting new heads of state but not (necessarily) new heads of government even if the latter actually hold more power. Funcrunch (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Paul Volcker

 * Support conditionally But there are parts that need to be referenced (mostly 1 sentence segments at the end of paragraphs or so). Taewangkorea (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * would you mind to take another look and add cn to any sentences that need citations? The sourcing doesn't look bad to me, generally. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have added around 6 citation needed templates to the gaps that I found. Overall, it is not bad, but the gaps are too big to ignore (For example, in the "Post-Federal Reserve" section there is an entire paragraph without inline citations.) Taewangkorea (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Not in horrible shape but a few too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Ad Orientem. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Russia banned from global sports for four years

 * Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Not an accurate blurb. The source above includes the words "if upheld" in describing the decision very early in the piece. The referenced article says "recommended that Russia be...banned..." This is significantly different from actually being banned at this moment in time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Guardian is reporting that this is a ban that Russia has 21 days to appeal. They also report that drug-free individuals will be permitted (as they were in PyoengChang). 331dot (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question where are the updates? The massive Doping in Russia article makes no mention of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Partial Support This is being covered by reliable sources, but I would suggest debolding the Russia at the 2020 Summer Olympics, we should NOT highlight that article, it is decidedly NOT main-page ready. It consists mostly of empty placeholder tables and has very little prose.  The other bolded article is in good shape, and can be a highlighted article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposed blurb is a bit problematic as the ban was imposed for "major" international sporting events, including the 2020 Summer Olympics and the 2022 World Cup, but not for European championships or events hosted in Russia. For now, it's hard to define what "major" means in this context unless there is an exact list of events or, at least, a set of criteria that events must meet so that the ban gets invoked. Otherwise, this is newsworthy and it merits inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support Delink the 2020 Olympics per Jayron32's excellent point. That article is nowhere near ready for the main page. The other, is generally in decent shape and well referenced though some expansion regards the most recent events may be desirable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Adding alt blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Important, article looks good to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * altblurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 White Island eruption

 * Support - article developing nicely. Just need to keep on top of the referencing (currently one unreferenced fact) and it'll be good to go. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, from List of volcanic eruptions by death toll, and if all the missing people are dead, the death toll would the 50th worse in all recorded history. The high number events typically involve more non-direct fatalities. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how reliable that list is. It seems to suggest that only 60 eruptions have caused fatalities. Not to mention the sourcing is disparate.AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer this list, which indicates that this is the sixth-deadliest volcanic eruption of the 21st century. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - however blurb needs editing. One of the deceased was a local NZer, a tour guide, so not "five tourists". MurielMary (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You could have done that, . Blurb tweaked to say "people". Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite able to,, but at almost midnight on a work night I prioritised getting some sleep! This is why WP is a band of volunteers, so no one has to do everything themselves. MurielMary (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the cfork is pointless and leaves this as another disaster stub. Merge it back into the island article and you have something decent for the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is small but seems just long enough, though I'm sure it will continue to expand. Sourcing looks good. Sizable volcanic eruptions such as this one are certainly rare, so I think this is ITN-worthy, regardless of death toll ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Article says 20 missing, Reuters says "more than two dozen" missing. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. This is a highly active volcano that erupts frequently. The only people affected seem to be those who were stood on the volcano when it exploded (currently the death toll is five; although that may rise later that is WP:CRYSTAL), with no broader impact. Tragic for those involved, but this event seems unlikely to have a long-term encyclopaedic value. I agree with LaserLegs that the current eruption article could have been one section in the volcano article; unless there's substantial expansion a separate article seems unnecessary. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article is short but sufficient, story is appearing in major news outlets. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Definitely in the news, article is not too bad and will undoubtedly be expanded.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Police believe there are no survivors: . 27 were left stranded on the island. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Death toll expected to rise from five," says Guardian. I get Modest Genius 's opsn, but the sudden, violent deaths of two dozen or more would be worth ITN. Five isn't. Wait. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Having seen some of the effects of one eruption, I'll never get why people want to get close to an active volcano. – Sca (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support At this point we can be reasonably certain that the death toll is going to be high. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Old saying in the news biz: "Never assume anything." – Sca (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Old saying in the encyclopedia biz: "To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea." - Henry David Thoreau. Good old ITN. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Support – BBC says "eight others are feared to have died." Enough. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: René Auberjonois

 * Oppose - Orange tagged sections and sourcing is indeed subpar ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Father Mulcahy and Odo were played by the same actor!?  Ah, I find that it was just the movie for the former role.  He and William Christopher did look similar though. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sections almost entirely devoid of sourcing.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as more references are needed. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Samoan measles outbreak

 * Support. Large death toll and ongoing crisis. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Plenty of international coverage and the article looks good. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing only – This has been going on for quite some time and looks to continue, so it should go into Ongoing. It's not spot news. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing - Sourcing is there and seems notable enough. Oppose a blurb ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing It appears to have been going on for some time so I think ongoing is better. The article seems fine. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Article not undergoing continuing ITN-level updates; should be posted as an individual blurb.  Spencer T• C 05:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Caroll Spinney

 * Oppose Sourcing is a bit poor and needs to be improved before posting. --M asem (t) 18:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly a notable person. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * notable goes without saying because he has a Wikipedia article. The only thing that needs to be assessed here is whether the article is of sufficient quality to be featured on the main page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. But I don't see anything wrong with the article, and I support linking it from the main page. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditional support Once sourcing is determined to be fixed, I support putting him up. That said, I added/fixed some of the sources and wording, although I left unsourced one bit that I don't know whether it should be there. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with blurb and photo of Big Bird p  b  p  23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the farthest case I would even begin considering for a blurb. May be a fond childhood memory but we're not going to post a blurb based on that. --M asem (t) 23:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support adding a picture of Big Bird, as it is globally recognizable. Davey2116 (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Big Bird is still alive (or "alive") and working, though. Only Spinney died. He's not such a familiar face. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, filmography needs some work. Spengouli (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unfortunately, I see the same referencing issues as others ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; In addition to the filmography, the early life section needs other sources. Once that's taken care of, it's an obvious support. I actually think the suggestion of a blurb and photo might not be a bad idea, considering the global reach and popularity of Sesame Street and his longevity in the show's lead role. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as more citations are needed. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still working on adding citations; what else needs to be cited before we put up Spinney? Also, do we have a standard for splitting off death sections for cases like this? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still a couple more needed. Unless there is a lot to writer about the death, it usually goes in personal life section. But there's no hard and fast rule. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juice Wrld

 * Support. Pretty significant death. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll added a bit to the sections and merged what remained. Article quality is pretty decent enough. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Some small sections need to be worked on some in terms of sourcing, but beyond that, I have no issues with the article. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing is passable and the death is getting a lot of social media attention. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support sourcing is adequate. Shocking death at such a young age. -Zanhe (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, article is in good shape. Sad. Spengouli (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Sourcing issues I saw when I nominated this appear to have been dealt with. --M asem (t) 04:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of several uncited claims about the subject and other living people. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I came close to posting this, but on closer look there are a few too many gaps in referencing. It's not a lot, but too many to ignore for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Surprised this hasn't been posted yet considering Juice Wrld's notability. The referencing is passable, but I'll go in and try to fill in what's still missing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Filled in all missing citations. Should be good to post. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 13:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, notability does not play into how fast or if RD's get posted, only article quality (unless you meant you were surprised the article was not cleaned up yet). Thanks for filling in the gaps.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I cleaned up any CN's that I saw, I see no issues with posting this now. It's not going to be nominated for a FA, but it's certainly good enough as a RD ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as sourcing concerns appear to have been addressed.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Maurizio Cattelan's $120,000 banana eaten by David Datuna

 * Oppose I wonder the significance of this. Even though I am glad that someone made good use of it before it got spoiled, by the looks of it, it was half rotten already. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DBXr. Not april Fools yet, and a fella noshing on a moody banana is not a newsworthy event, whatever spin be put upon it. In any case, Datuna's article devotes a single sentence to the "event", and Cattelan's nothing at all. ——  SN  54129  12:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Call this art?! Didn't even need a can opener. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Although if Datuna has his thinking cap on, he would approximate Manzoni's work with the banana, a valued recycling of semi-epic proportions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, I am curious to know how much will a can filled with Datuna's shit will now sell for ? any bets ?-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose This is a sarcastic and humorous blurb which do not meet with ITN news section guidelines. It doesn't have any meaning and readers would be in disarray in case if it gets nominated. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thousands of Wikipedia readers in disarray after a hungry artist eats a US$120,000 banana seems like a good headline though. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insignificant manufactured fake news.  YGBSM  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ...Or a devious publicity stunt.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And (not 'Or') a publicity stunt. It was also part of the Performance art.  Man eats $120,000 piece of art taped to wall AFP December 8, 2019  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * naah, I'd not call this as fake news, the man did eat the banana after all. The fact that the museum added another banana there within 15 mins, is a different story. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Fake news" doesn't apply to this, events which actually occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it occurred, and that is a fact. So it isn't worthwhile "news" even if it isn't fake.  But it is a manufactured event that isn't worth mentioning on the main page.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, to that I would agree. It is just that calling an event that "actually" happened as fake news will itself be a fake news. With all these fake news floating around, why add another ?  D Big X ray ᗙ  15:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. And of course, there are persons in power that use the "fake news" label as an epithet, even when it shouldn't apply. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It would be one thing if we were talking about a multi-million dollar piece of art of significance being destroyed, but this is definitely not that. More a funny curiosity than ITN. --M asem (t) 15:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Fake fruit?? All sounds a bit trippy to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Delhi factory fire

 * Support as updater of article. Article is long enough, notable to have place on front page of Wikipedia.-- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 11:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per DBXr (who has added >46% of the artcle), not per Harshil169 (who has added <12%).  ——  SN  54129  12:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is not similar to the 2019 London Bridge stabbing where two casualties were reported. This fire incident is very much notable because 43 casualties have been reported so far and has coverages even from CNN, BBC. My concern is just to add more sources for this article. Abishe (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs a copy edit for grammar (or you can accuse me of "a bicker", whichever). As an aside, we posted the 2019 Surat fire it almost seems as if civil disasters in India are as common place as other causes of large scale civilian deaths in other countries. Either way fix the article before posting please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Today's fire is the worst Delhi has seen since 1997, Surat is a separate city and it happened in May. LaserLegs it would be helpful if you could point the improvements on the talk page, thanks. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Needs copy-editing for Eng. style, syn. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Valereee has helped to copy edit the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - major disaster with high fatality, widely reported (I saw reports on BBC, NYT, CNN, etc.) -Zanhe (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herbert Joos

 * Looks good to me, well done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Does the With Vienna Art Orchestra list need citations?  Kees08  (Talk)   15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The ref is on top of the recording section, after the name of the orchestra. Feel free to copy it to every item if you feel that is needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Some red links but that's not a quality issue, sourcing looks fine for this --M asem (t) 15:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bump Elliott

 * Thanks for nominating. Need a short update on his death &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps you would have time to address Martin's concern and make any other updates required for this article?   Kees08  (Talk)   15:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a couple of sentences of prose about his death. can you help? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have taken care of that, but I wasn't sure where it would fit within the article. It looks like Pawnkingthree has taken care of the update. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Not much to say but I have added something. Hopefully good to go now.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 05:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Saunders

 *  Support. Very signifiant figure in the sport. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support Article is in good shape. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) 2019 Maltese protests

 * Comment First of all the article needs to sort out the copyright issues. I was not aware about the protests in Malta before looking at the article. Abishe (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is now well sourced and would be great to make it into ITN as most of them might not be aware of this protest. Abishe (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing – More appropriate. Note that present-tense lead says "a series of ongoing protests." – Sca (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ongoing. For now.BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing no evidence of "continuous updates" as required by WP:ITN. November 7 update mentions "dozens of protestors". Dozens. Come on. Oppose Blurb for now it'll be fine when he actually resigns in January. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure if my comment is allowed - the "dozens" you are referring to refers to a small protest carried out by Maltese in London. Tomorrow, another demonstration in Malta has been announced, with a turnout expected in tens of thousands, as all other protests in Malta. Thanks! Zugraga talk 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So when that happens it will have been the second protest of any significance in a week -- still not "ongoing". I don't care that much if it's blurbed I just don't want a slow simmering story festering in the box for a year. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing, willing to support individual blurb only. While the event is continuing, subsequent updates wouldn't be worthy of ITN-level postings, but a regular blurb about what's going on would be. Can consider an additional posting with a later resignation.  Spencer T• C 19:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing and/or blurb OK The article topic seems reasonable updated for ongoing and has no major problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought I will support a blurb once the Prime Minister resigns, so ongoing for now I guess. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Question don't we usually wait for the Prime Minister to actually resign before posting this kind of blurb? Banedon (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted to ongoing. Discussion about a blurb should continue. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb since the PM hasn't resigned yet. He can change his mind anyday. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is getting messy. The nomination was for a blurb and posting to Ongoing does not, by my eye, have consensus. The above comments are correct in that the blurb can't be posted as-is, because plans to resign has not historically met the impact threshold at ITN. The updates to the article are a bare minimum for a current event, the organization of the article is not good but passable, and on reading through the article I lost track of what, exactly, the protests are supposedly about. I strongly suggest to pull from Ongoing and continue with this as a blurb nomination. I have suggested an alt-blurb that I think is more reasonable. If Ongoing is desired, someone should make an Ongoing nomination so we can vote clearly for/against that.130.233.3.203 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Berkley Bedell

 * Support High quality article. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, updated. -Zanhe (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ron Leibman

 * Oppose For now, until refs are added. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hyderabad gang rape

 * Suppport I also thought of nominating this here. It is a developing story across the globe and has enough coverages from prolific news media. Despite the current Afd, I feel it would be worth enough to nominate here. Abishe (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I've closed the AfD as Keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thx Sam, we can now focus this discussion on the article quality.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, story is getting wide and deep coverage. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it has been added, support Alt blurb III (The one with allegedly) -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppport AfD it is mentioned here has been closed as keep, the subject is newsworthy. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Suppport Noteable and definatly in the news at the moment.  N0nsensical.system (err0r?) 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I made an altblurb as to clarify why they were shot (knowing that, if this were the case in the US, the original blurb would question if the police willingly did it). All accounts I see state the police were acting in according when the suspects attempted to grab weapons and flee during scene recreation, making it a justified shooting. --M asem (t) 14:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, The concern I have with the alt blurb is, we are assuming the claim by the police as a fact here. Only an independent investigation by NHRC that is ongoing, can bring out if it was indeed what the Cops (who are the killers here) were indeed being truthful or if it was a fake and staged Police encounter. AFAICS the sources are attributing the claim to the Police, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to not do it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand that - just that none of the RSes are posing that question. As I mentioned, if this was in the US, it would be implicit that there was a possible police setup to kill these outside the justice system. I don't know if India has that same problem, but the sources are not giving that impression - no one seems to be begging the question of the police story, yet. I have no problem with the alledgely in there as in the alt2, but the first was just a bit too terse that it could have been read that this was a criticized action on the police, where in fact its being treated as a resolution on the rape crime. --M asem (t) 14:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support original blurb. Alt blurb would need to be changed to allegedly, according to the police, trying to escape during a 3am reconstruction of the crime. :) --valereee (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Added Alt III which should address the concerns noted above. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I must confess some doubt about the wider significance of this sordid episode, which seems to depend on its lurid and violent character for newsworthiness. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Slow down I keep thinking the same thing, and mentioned as much in an earlier incident. Rapes happen everywhere, and India is a big country. As an American right now, I'm thinking WHAT THE HELL is going on in India with all the rape/murder/burning incidents all of the sudden? Gang rapes of 8 year olds?! Then my brain clicks and thinks - is this not just a matter of media coverage? I honestly don't know which is true, but we should weigh that question carefully.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the thing you think after your brain clicks is true. Sometimes I wonder how you, as an American, are even alive right now, with the opioid, shooting and fascism epidemics tearing your world apart simultaneously. Then my brain clicks. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk, Sca, User:GreatCaesarsGhost. If it was just a rape, we probably wont even be having an article on wiki. yes rapes happen everywhere, but not all rapes are covered like this. The reason for the enormous coverage is the enormous public protest and outrage that came after the rape. You can see the Aftermath section to understand more. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair - the reaction is the story. My point (before it was intentionally perverted) is that a casual reader may not make that connection, but instead read a steady stream of rape stories about India as evidence that India is uniquely afflicted.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion - The frequency illusion that tags India as rape central is a good article on this. Side discussion continued on User_talk:GreatCaesarsGhost -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from various aspects of culture, India does have one point of uniqueness directly related to potentially increasing gender issues -- its rapidly tilting gender ratio, currently 1.12/1.13 males to every female through the age of 24 (fifth highest in the world at birth) and climbing. In a country of 1 billion+ population, that adds up to a lot of unattached men. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support either original or ALT3; pace Masem, but I don't think anyone actually believes that the police's story is wholly unelongated, and certainly not to the extent of treating them as a WP:RS (as opposed to having the biggest WP:COI since Charles Canning won an Influencer of the Year Award, 1857). ——  SN  54129  15:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unelongated – is that like unmeaningless? – Sca (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - blurb is good; I'm not concerned about the wording. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted No consensus (and seems most WP:NPOV at this point) to not get into what "allegedly" happened.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment We're not featuring this grammatical curiosity on the main page: "The police has not confirmed a link between the second corpse and veterinarian's murder.". --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Are you saying a problematic sentence is reason to keep the blurb off the main page? Because if it's just an issue you've found in the article that needs to be fixed, it's generally better to just fix it yourself, or if you can't figure out how to fix it, you can discuss how to fix it at the article talk rather than bringing it up in the itn nom. --valereee (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with valereee, this is bickering. I don't see any problem in the sentence, but if someone thinks they can rewrite it in a better way, they are welcome to change it.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree all you want, I read articles before rushing to pile "support" on some "very important" bullshit if that's not good enough for y'all I don't know what to tell you. These ESL articles ALWAYS have questionable grammar and require constant attention while on the MP. Nevermind... --LaserLegs (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what ESL articles mean. Nevertheless, you should know that "" is never a reasonable justification to oppose a proposal for Mainpage. That is another bickering. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably English as a second or foreign language is what LaserLegs is referring to.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , not only have I read the article, I've edited it heavily in the past 8 hours. The sentence you objected to as being disqualifying for the article being linked from the main page was fixed by this: The police has have not confirmed a link between the second corpse and the veterinarian's murder. --valereee (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indian English can be appropriate under MOS:TIES.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Grammar Slam Shot by police, not while trying to escape by them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting edit - While still not a great headline, I added 'case' to it so that it reads less like the perpetrators were caught in the act. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, thanks Fuzheado-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Comment – Interestingly, none of the 15 European Wikis include this squalid affair in various versions of ITN. – Sca (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, and how many of those 15 European languages are spoken in India? Let me guess. None. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.—Bagumba (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tabloid trash in any language. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in good shape and it’s one of the most important news trending in India right now.—IM3847 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ji Zhe

 * Looks good. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Robert Walker (actor, born 1940)

 * Oppose but ping me once the references are added. Taewangkorea (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) SMS Scharnhorst

 * Comment – The sinking of the Scharnhorst, with the squadron commander, Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee aboard, was a significant event in the early naval history of WWI. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: This is not the noted battleship Scharnhorst of World War II. – Sca (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Article is of great quality. My support is only weak because of the small size of the portion of article that's on the wreck/discovery ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. A famous warship that seems more significant than other recent shipwreck nominations. The article needs more than two sentences on the wreck discovery before it should be posted, but is otherwise good (an FA). I suggest we get Battle of the Falkland Islands into the blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A significant find. The ship was the flagship of the Imperial German Navy's Asiatic Squadron that was involved in arguably the most important chapter of naval warfare during the Great War, second only to the Battle of Jutland. In addition to the Battle of the Falkland Islands (see above) she was also involved in the Battle of Coronel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems like the article is ready for posting. and interesting news.BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support FA quality article, seems a no-brainer to me. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support High quality article. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support, although it's wild to see at least two people supporting above who previously opposed a discovering of a different sunken warship, a ship that was arguably more significant that Scharnhorst and also has a FA article on Wikipedia. That's not to take anything away from this nomination, which I'm happy to see posted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A warship that was not European enough??? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Sri Lankan Swiss embassy controversy

 * Comment I have slightly re-formatted your nomination to include the updated & bolded article and to re-phrase. At a minimum, the article needs some CE. Note that the sources in the nomination are from 27 and 28 Nov., while the motivation for the nomination is based on reports from today in lesser-known sources. More coverage may develop in the coming days.130.233.3.203 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It's a fascinating story - one that I think could be featured on ITN - but the sourcing is questionable and the article is currently red tagged as a candidate for deletion. If there is consensus to keep the article, please ping me for reconsideration of my vote. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Article certainly needs some work, but I'd disregard the AfD. The editor that did that is a disruptive user and proud of it (seriously, check out his user page). 159.53.78.147 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @IP159.53.78.147 you weren't kidding. I noted my opinion to keep the article on the AfD page. And Abishe, don't be sorry! I don't agree with the red tag but unfortunately, we cannot support a red tagged article for ITN. Hopefully it'll be taken off soon ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Self oppose I am extremely sorry for this nomination because it has now been Afded and it might not be factually right to get into ITN section. Possibly if the article is retained then can think about this. Abishe (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chen Xingbi

 * Posted. Looks good, fully updated and sourced.  Spencer T• C 19:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tetsu Nakamura

 * Support - article is in shape. This man is a hero that our readers would be privileged to read about.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Would love to see more info about his humanitarian work as the article is slanted toward coverage of his death, but covers the key details and is ready for posting.  Spencer T• C 13:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Looks ready ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Parker Solar Probe

 * Oppose We did post when Parker "arrived" at the Sun last August in an operational state. We have 6+ more years of scientific study. Unless we have a groundbreaking result, this is not really news. (If we had not posted its arrival, this would have been a way to recognize that) --M asem (t) 04:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , no we posted the launch. We have not posted the arrival. In a manner of speaking, it will arrive at its destination more than 2 dozen times (already reached the Sun's corona three times). So arrival is not a major accomplishment for this mission. Results are the major event for this mission. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hrm. I thought that was arrival, but yeah. Obviously this is an important mission, but we can't post every time papers are released, (and with about 3 passes each year, that's potentially a lot). I would still want to see some fundamentally important affirmation/discovery from the data that is groundbreaker rather than just because the first data was published. But I'm not sure now yet. --M asem  (t) 05:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We need an expert. what do you think? The media is making a big deal out of this. Is this much ado about nothing? ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have a conflict of interest on this one, so should refrain from !voting. I do think this nomination needs to be judged on the scientific advance, not 'arriving at destination', as that doesn't really apply to PSP (even first perihelion would have been a stretch). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping too. ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose there're plenty of astronomy missions and it's not plausible to make their reporting of results ITNR. For example, just count how many probes were launched by the European Space Agency that we have articles on (and that's only one space agency). These missions all led to scientific papers as well, many of them quite important for their respective fields. There's nothing especially important about these Parker papers other than the fact that the media has chosen to cover them. Banedon (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support – Four reasons:
 * Solid article.
 * There are not plenty of astronomy missions like this one. These are the first published scientific data from the closest we've ever been to the sun. The headline of yesterday's editorial in Nature (journal) was Parker probe kicks off a golden age for solar exploration: Humanity is finally getting up close and personal with Earth’s nearest star.. The media is widely reporting it. NPR: An unprecedented mission to venture close to the sun has revealed a strange region of space filled with rapidly flipping magnetic fields and rogue plasma waves. National Geographic: Today, four studies in the journal Nature report the first data from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, an unprecedented mission that has been able to fly ever closer to the sun, three times so far, and taste its coronal breath. Already, these close encounters are solving some solar mysteries, and they’re revealing a treasure trove of unexpected findings. NYTimes: Scientists released the mission’s first batch of findings on Wednesday, revealing that the dynamics of our star are even weirder than once imagined. Space: The first science results are in from NASA's Parker Solar Probe (PSP), which has flown faster and closer to the sun than any other human-made object in history. Science News, Reuters, CNN, CNET, Guardian, Independent, Le Monde, India Today, The Australian and so on.
 * We are an academic project and it would be good to have something in the box that isn't politics, sports, natural disasters, or recent celebrity deaths.
 * Great picture. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, but I have to agree with Banedon here. It's not reasonable to make spaceflight any more ITNR than it already is, as there's a flurry of high-profile events about to happen; ongoing results from Juno and Parker, the OSIRIS-REx asteroid landing, the launch of Chang'e 5, the return to Earth of Hayabusa2 (that one probably will be significant enough to highlight), the maiden flights of Dragon 2 and Boeing CST-100 Starliner (which will mark the return of crewed US spaceflights after the retirement of Shuttle), the start of construction on the Chinese large modular space station, the launches of four separate Mars missions (US, Russia/ESA, UAE and China), and activation of OneWeb and Starlink, all over the next 12 months. Our existing guidelines (both written and unwritten) when it comes to spaceflight were drawn up before the start of the latest space race and if anything need to be tightened, not loosened. &#8209; Iridescent 09:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Strictly because the blurb does not make clear the significance of the event. It might well be that, even clarified, the significance is not high enough. Publishing reports is de rigueur for these kinds of projects, even if the project yields nothing new. Contra above, I do not think that existing rules wrt spaceflight should be tightened, because I don't sense an over-abundance of spaceflight items getting into ITN.130.233.3.203 (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP 130.233.3.203 above. The publishing of findings is a poor blurb in my opinion - the blurb should mention the findings and what's significant about them. If they found anything of interest, that would be the event I think ITN would want to cover, but it does not seem that's the case here (from my novice understanding of physics). ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , alt blurbs added. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now because I find the blurb banal and uninteresting. Scientific papers are published daily on a variety of subjects.  What makes them newsworthy is what those papers say.  If we can get a blurb that outlines a particularly novel or groundbreaking bit of science this probe has provided for us I would reconsider, but this is a nothingburger.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , alt blurbs added. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb – "After flying closer to the sun than any probe in history, the Parker Solar Probe observes a thousand "rogue" magnetic waves strong enough to completely reverse the local magnetic field and increase solar wind speeds by 300,000 mph." (Sources:, , , ).
 * Shorter: "The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report "rogue" magnetic waves and other solar surprises."
 * While this isn't the scientific breakthrough of the century, that shouldn't be the metric by which we judge inclusion. This is a lot more rare than "head of government elected" or "head of government resigns", which are two blurbs currently in the box. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's closer to what we need. I would drop the "and other solar surprises" as basically meaningless.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support just "The Parker Solar Probe's first findings report 'rogue' magnetic waves." There are four papers published about four separate findings of the probe, and rogue waves is just one of them, which is what I intended to convey with something like, "among others", but it's really hard to condense four scientific papers into one short blurb. Perhaps just picking the rogue waves one is best. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , please go ahead add a couple of blurbs to the nomination template and add the facts you want to highlight to the article body. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Updated the article and added some alt blurbs to the nom. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Haven't we posted this (or something very similar) recently? – Ammarpad (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Wider significance beyond a niche audience is not apparent. What impact do the 'findings' have on people in general? – Sca (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb II or altblurb - but altblurb III makes me feel like there might not be anything more in the article - so I probably wouldn't bother clicking rogue waves - and regards the previous comment by Sca - I think that's not important - some foreign leader resigns has very little direct impact, but doesn't mean it isn't potentially interesting EdwardLane (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) P. Chidambaram

 * Oppose. The article is not particularly clear, but if I understand it (and the BBC story) correctly he hasn't been convicted of anything, this is just an issue of whether his bail is served in or out of prison while he awaits trial. We do occasionally post convictions in sufficiently newsworthy cases, but a release on bail is nowhere near that level. Also the article has an orange NPOV tag. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Politicians get arrested daily. Nothing significant about this. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 20:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose for now We generally only post convictions, not earlier steps in the judicial process. Would be willing to revisit this article when he's been convicted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bob Willis

 * Support GA, well-sourced and updated.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is a GA, looks all updated/sourced where needed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - GA looking good ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ritchie.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Is 9 minutes a new record? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I thought 15 minutes was fast... Brandmeistertalk  10:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which quality concerns with the article do you have? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * None at all? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Alphabet Inc. CEO changed

 * Oppose - Not even remotely close to significant enough for ITN. Routine business news standard. -- KTC (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per KTC DTM (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a significant impact. Anyway Sundar Pichai is the CEO of Google and becoming a CEO of Alphabet is just a little thing in his case. Abishe (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yawn. I can't think of any company where a change in the CEO would be ITN-level news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Cha In-ha

 * Oppose – Over-emphasis on his death and almost nothing about his life. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Yeah, per C&C it's basically a stub ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ping me when the article is expanded. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

 * Support I've removed some minor early life info with an unreliable Armenian Wikipedia source. The rest of the article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Looks good.  Spencer T• C 14:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * credits please. --Vegan Gypsy (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johann Baptist Metz

 * Wow, Gerda, what you did with the article is awesome! Support, all looks good. --Tone 21:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Marked ready. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Very nice! Thanks Gerda! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Atkinson III

 * Support - Short article but good enough in referencing department ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've since expanded it a bit more.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: D.C. Fontana

 * Support - Minus long lead, the article is in really good shape. I'd weakly support with the long lead and yellow tag, but strongly support if it was cleaned up. Thanks Masem! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the lede and removed the tag. --M asem (t) 20:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) COP25

 * Oppose - Not certain but I don't believe we typically list conferences as ongoing, even UN ones. In any case, I'm not sure the article will be updated a ton during the conference. Perhaps when it is over there may be some news to blurb, but I don't see much updating being done in the meantime ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, Wait for blurb. Ongoing is for articles which have incremental updates which individually would not merit inclusion in ITN, but do collectively.  It isn't generally for things that are merely in progress.  I could see posting a blurb for the commencement of this conference, but it would probably be better to post the conclusion if some notable agreement is reached. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing - If there is a major decision that falls out of the conference in two-weeks time, then we can go with a blurb, but we usually do not post these international conferences (UN, G7/8, G20, etc.) unless we have something newsworthy about them. --M asem (t) 21:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – The conference lasts two weeks and will produce a plethora of verbiage and data, some of which might be be newsworthy and blurblable. Whether it might be more suitable for Ongoing we shall see. However, such a momentous topic probably will deserve a "climate conference ends with..." blurb at its conclusion. – Sca (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose maybe we'll have a blurb at the end of the conference, but conferences generally don't belong in the ongoing section. Lepricavark (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when conference concludes. The news is already out that the optimistic scenarios we're going to end up with 2.9 C warming, while the evidence for entering into a Hothouse Earth state due to an initial warming of more than 1.5 C as mentioned here has become a lot stronger. If the conference concludes without any pledges for stronger action, then that will be very significant news just as any pledges to implement very strong actions. Count Iblis (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet at the same time, I would not be the least bit astonished, considering The Orange One's boorish eagerness to crash out of the Paris Agreement and tout the wonders of beautiful clean coal. That may diminish its significance somewhat.--WaltCip (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait. I agree this is not suitable for ongoing, but will probably produce a blurb at the conclusion of the conference. Revisit once we know the outcome. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regularly-scheduled conference about a well-worn subject. I highly doubt that any resulting pronouncement at the conclusion will be blurb-able, but if someone feels differently then a nomination should come later.130.233.2.197 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone is tired of the topic, but that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support... if it's regularly undated until 13 December. STSC (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the opening of the conference. We can revisit when it closes or if there is otherwise a notable development. Teemu08 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as ongoing as I think we do not typically list conferences there. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Power of Siberia opened

 * Support 3,000 km of pipe, $400 billion over 30 years for 1.8 trillion cubic metres, sourcing looks fine. Maybe a blurb with an impressive number? Delivering gas to China isn't much, in itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt1. This does seem to be a major piece of infrastructure, with geopolitical implications, and the article meets ITN quality criteria (barring one cn tag). However the article left me wanting more information (such as the actual cost, not just the planned one) and is strangely uninteresting. Surely there's more to say about the context and implications of such a project? <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * has some interesting context and a map that makes the one in our article seem misleading... <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - While the article looks fine, I'm going to argue that this event really isn't significant enough to be featured on ITN. It simply seems like just another big pipeline - and while that may not be the case, the article doesn't suggest there is anything special about this pipeline compared to others (is it a biggest? a most expensive? a first? etc). However, as this is my subjective opinion, I am open to changing my vote based on others arguments for significance ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the widest (flow-wise), beating Yamal-Europe by five billion annual cubic metres. In theory, anyway. We'll see next year. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is sufficient, news sources are covering the event. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I think this is an important moment in China-Russia relations.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It does seem to have geopolitical impact and it's definitely an engineering feat. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weakly Support ALT1 The article has no problems, and I think its impact on China-Russia relations is important. That being said, idk if it really is that significant for ITN. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is significant event relating to two giants from North and East. STSC (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Major impact on international relations as shown above. Swordman97  talk to me  19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 07:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Hong Kong protests

 * Support - the district council election was effectively a successful referendum in support the pro-democracy movement, and will likely energize protesters. Meanwhile the Hong Kong government has not given any concession. Therefore the protests will continue - they have not died out in months (the lull was due to wanting a peaceful election) - protesters have learnt from the 2014 Hong Kong protests turning up nothing. Since Beijing will likely not concede anything, this will likely not end well.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Major protests occurred as recently as yesterday. feminist (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I nominated the election, and my intent was for the election blurb to be separate from the protests; unfortunately I didn't make that clear enough. The protests are clearly ongoing; the temporary pause following the election was expected, and now things are picking back up again. Davey2116 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ongoing, definitely.BabbaQ (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. D Big X ray ᗙ  09:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is not being continuously updated as stipulated by WP:ITN. This is a base requirement and is not negotiable no matter how "ongoing" you deem the event to be. "Hundreds of people marched along Lower Albert Road beside the US consulate on 1 December". That's yesterdays one sentence update about "100's" of people. The article is getting these garbage, one sentence non-specific updates. (one-hundreds? eight-hundreds? Who knows). Nominate a different article if you want this one is not suitable for the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hundreds of people probably walk that road each day regardless. If this were a major protest, they'd have gone to Garden Road as intended, instead of obeying police marching orders. There'd have been conflict, like interesting stories have, not just routine Trump mentions. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that the target article is simply not being meaningfully updated enough. Even if it was, the article is getting HUGE and I fear that, as more information is added, quality may decrease. What if we instead used List of December 2019 Hong Kong protests as the target article? While list is in the title, it is much more detailed than a typical list and (presumably) will be updated more without creating an article the size of a textbook ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That article mostly signifies nothing, too. Hundreds carried balloons, called on people who weren't there, then dispersed in an orderly fashion at dusk, like pedestrians. A few rowdies in the news chucking stuff, but a few mildly bad apples don't bump up the bunch. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article is a good overview article, and being sufficiently updated for the level of detail, per WP:SUMMARY, one would expect. Sub-articles broken off for space are appropriate and also in good quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Per Jayron. Still the biggest story in the world's 'biggest' (pop.) country. – Sca (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article has already failed the criteria: "The article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information" per WP:ITN, and it has been removed from 'ongoing'. I don't think we may reinstate the ongoing status for the same article which has been judged as not regularly updated. STSC (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the article was removed from ongoing without any comment on its updates. It was removed because we posted a blurb about the district council elections. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Enough updates to justify ongoing. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I came to post, but there are now two maintenance templates on top of this article &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like the templates are that popular, looking at the talk page. Maybe they should be removed? Swordman97  talk to me  19:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Swordman97 I agree and I have removed the tags and left a note on the talk page explaining my removal of the tags. MSGJ over to you. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The neutrality tag should have been accompanied with the opening of a talk page discussion; I don't see one, so removing the tag is justified. Davey2116 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support -- it is as much ongoing as the Impeachment inquiry, at least. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is it being "continuously updated with pertinent information" as stipulated by WP:ITN? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment has anyone read this? "The Siege of PolyU"? A siege? Really, a friggin siege? I mean ..... y'all are gonna put this back on the main page and we know it but holy NPOV batman a siege? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A really basic search comes up with things like the Washington post, the Financial Times or the Telegraph all calling it a siege. Decently diverse group, although of course all Western media. Surely loads and loads more reliable sources out there calling it a siege as well. But then again, looking at your recent comments here, i am not even sure how serious you are in mentioning this or if this is making some sort of point again. 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:6921:9F6:90F7:B605 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the "Siege of CUKH" has already been moved to the more neutral "Chinese University of Hong Kong conflict" even though the 2019 Hong Kong protests article still uses the loaded term "Siege". Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, be bold and change it in the article perhaps? 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:6921:9F6:90F7:B605 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IP has this one right. Searching Google for a definition of "siege", I get "an operation in which a police or other force surround a building and cut off supplies, with the aim of forcing an armed person to surrender", which is a picture perfect description of what happened. Banedon (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should get the CUHK article renamed again, since consensus was against you there. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, even China Daily called it a siege. But what another article is called really makes no difference to this nomination. So maybe move that discussion to the article talk of said article?2003:D6:2729:FFD1:6921:9F6:90F7:B605 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - siege was the exact description given in Reuters / Associated Press / Agence France Presse / BBC / Bloomberg / Al Jazeera / Nikkei Asian Review. I'd like to see you provide sources that are even more neutral that what I can come up with. Plus, you have mixed up the universities. The Chinese University of Hong Kong conflict is not the same as the Siege of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Clearly, you are not as well read on this issue as I would have hoped.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the Polytech article still uses siege in the name and is not renamed like LaserLegs claims? Oh well... What is the issue regarding the term 'siege' NPOV wise anyway? Seems to be a term used to describe the event by both sides (link to a China Daily article in a previous comment), plus all the sources Starship paint linked to and my basic search from before... What is your issue here exactly LaserLegs? Why is it not NPOV in your opinion? 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:F091:9422:AF9A:319A (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So CNN calls it an occupation since we're cherry picking WP:RS which suits our POV and rightly points out that the students were free to leave any time they just faced arrest -- so not a siege at all. Cool right? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking sources? You cannot be serious with that. In this nomination alone there are 11 sources calling it a siege, from both sides of the issue no less. You present one source and say the rest of us are cherrypicking to suit a particular POV?!? And since when is a siege defined through physical harm? It does not matter if they 'just faced arrest' (citation needed on that by the way). Banedon gave you the definition for what a siege is. So, again... What is your actual issue here. And this time please without cherrypicking a single source and making a pompous argument out of it. For example, why is 'siege' not ok in your opinion? What is the value judgement of the term, how is it POV? Please explain that. You may not like this "zombie article", as you called it before, but come on... this is ridiculous. 2003:D6:2729:FFD1:F091:9422:AF9A:319A (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - what a ridiculous charge of cherry picking given the breadth and the quality of the sources I've provided, followed by original research (not a siege at all) totally contrary to reliable sources. Who's the one cherry picking, when CNN has also called it a siege?  starship .paint  (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN also calls criticism an attack, Washington a battlefield and information ammunition. News skirts the line to make the mundane feel interesting, encyclopedias needn't ought to. It is technically a very small siege, though (any besieged force is free to surrender). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Given that the article is quite long, there are spinoff articles such as List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests and now List of December 2019 Hong Kong protests where readers can find day-to-day updates. Chrisclear (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – item is still in the news daily; article is being expanded daily. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support very much an ongoing situation. Lepricavark (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is very much still a news-worthy item. Swordman97  talk to me  08:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is it being "continuously updated" as stipulated by WP:ITN? All the supports in the world do no good if they don't evaluate the article against the actual inclusion criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly ongoing, and given that the pro-democracy camp has won the local election AND there is a march organized by CRHF, it shows that the movement is going on and it is expected many more details should be added to the article. --223.17.167.158 (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have put back the 'very long' maintenance tag because the oversize issue has not been resolved. An oversized article would not be a quality article for ITN. STSC (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted The currently tagged "too long" concern does not fall within the quality points outlined at In_the_news.—Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is still being constantly updated. The march next week will be huge (hopefully). PS: The "too long" maintenance tag is disputed. OceanHok (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Lil Bub

 * Conditional support Only one unsourced sentence but good to go if we can sort out the cleanup. ミラP 03:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the sentence you are referring to now cited?  Kees08  (Talk)   15:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I switch to support. ミラP 15:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 *  Support  - Now cited well and yellow tags shouldn't typically hold up an article from posting ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes... I need to look closer at the sources themselves, not just which claims are sourced. Switching to oppose per GreatCaesarsGhost ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose A great many of the citations are to unreliable or primary sources.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited, and no major problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per GreatCaesarsGhost: I find his concerns compelling and also share them; the sourcing is extensive, but many of the statements in the article are solely sourced to unreliable or non-independent sources. I'd like to see that cleaned up.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Caesar  Kees08  (Talk)   16:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just put a lot of work into the referencing, but probably an equal amount of work still needs to be done, in case anyone wants to tag in. I might try again later.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Iraqi protests

 * Support was going to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes as above! Sherenk1 (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The "Causes, goals, methods" section is lacking in sources and the "Timeline" section reads like a news ticker ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: There are still some unreferenced things that need addressing, mostly the "Assassination and intimidation campaign" subsection of "Causes, goals, methods". Fix that, and it should be main-page ready.  Adil Abdul-Mahdi is a bit short, but sufficient otherwise.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support Minor issues such as citation needed tags and the causes goals methods that need sources. No problems otherwise. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I cleared the tags. These are the largest protests in Iraq in almost 20 years, and causing the PM's resignation is a big deal. Any head of state resigning due to public protests is a big deal. Article is in good shape. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The protests have resulted in over 400 deaths and the removal of the head of government (not head of state), which seems significant enough to me. The articles are just about adequate but not impressive - the protests article is mostly WP:PROSELINE, whilst Abdul-Mahdi's is very short for a head of government (and Prime Minister of Iraq is a stub). It's a shame we don't have better content to highlight. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)