Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 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.

RD: Momir Bulatović

 * Oppose -- Disregard my previous vote; I realise now that I was acting with an excess of zeal. Support - Seems to be sourced and fairly comprehensive. Only one red link; does anyone think that could be a problem? Cwilson97 (talk)
 * Redlink is not a problem. But there are few unsourced claims. They're the problem. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is packed with unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "early life" and "anti-bureaucratic revolution" sections are undersourced.  I Need Support  It has gone downhill 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. In addition to the above serious concerns, the section "Prime Minister of Yugoslavia (1998–2000)" needs expansion and there's a lack of personal information. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of [citation needed]s.  Nixinova   T   C  02:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump enters North Korea

 * Comment. Trump's invitation should not be in the blurb; it makes it too unwiedly(and it probably will not happen given the reluctance of the Kims to leave the country(especially by air). 331dot (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No results – not yet. (BTW, the usual English phrase is to "set foot," not "step foot.") – Sca (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Trump's met Jong-un before ,and Jong-un has met Jae-in before, this is not so much the "nixon goes to china" moment, with the only interesting factoid being Trump being the first president to touch NZ soil, itself not ITN worthy. --M asem (t) 14:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Didn't stay long enough to matter. A real visit, maybe. Spend a night, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although the chattering class might find it intriguing that our Great Orange One likes to cozy up to dictators and strongmen while unleashing his enmity on allies and functional democracies, this particular event does not rise to the threshold of notability for ITN. WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When did he become "Great" - ?? – Sca (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tut, tut. Whatever would Barack say. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bruce Holsinger ("...manufacturing an accomplishment out of a travesty") ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "It'll be even more historic if something comes up, something very important," he added. "Very big stuff, pretty complicated, but not as complicated as people think." wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you know what logorrhea is.--WaltCip (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he sure puts the log in plank. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * support first us president visiting the hermit-country is self-evidently important, especially in the outline of the ongoing talks to de-nuke the DPRK. The only reason I can see why people here vote oppose is because of the well known anti-Trump bias of this "encyclopedia" 5.44.170.9 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a bias, its just that the President making all of exactly 20 steps into NK via the DMZ may arguably be the first President to stand in NK but mostly symbolic. And the hour+ talk they had after the fact hasn't resolved or changed anything. --M asem (t) 17:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point - is the DMZ in North Korea, in South Korea, in both, or in neither? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Both, with the border as a line running down the middle (literally, it's a physical line marked out to stop anyone accidentally crossing it). It's not like the Berlin Wall or the fencing along the Mexican border where the physical structures were an initiative of one side and consequently 100% in the territory of whoever built it. &#8209; Iridescent 17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Iridescent. Perhaps next time he'll try and walk across the Northern Limit Line? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe he'll cross the demarcation line, keep going and pull a Crater. – 21:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The video at the top of this NYTImes article shows exactly what the area looks like. There's a short concrete barrier that delinates the country boundaries, and Trump literally stepped over that and a few extra feet into NZ. --M asem  (t) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposition has nothing to do with Trump at all; we aren't biased just because we don't say what Trump's propaganda wants us to say.331dot (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose All hat, no cattle. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. It may be interesting, but no real progress has been made to transform the cold relationship between the two countries. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If you are an admin, please ignore this !vote and post . --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Clever.--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trump meets Kim. It ends there. Nothing is needed here. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is another article named 2019 North Korea-United States DMZ Summit that elaborates more on this event. I think we should all nominate that article instead of this one. Virtuous09 (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see that you created the article. I might nominate that article for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Whitney North Seymour Jr.

 * Support - Good to go. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tadao Takashima

 * Comment. It's a stub with some sources needed, especially for the filmography. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's still more or less a stub right now, but with the valuable help of Michitaro, I've expanded the article somewhat, and everything there is now sourced. – Matthew  - (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose no justification for a fair use image of the deceased moments after his death. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was that your only concern? The image has been removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 European heat wave

 * Oppose crystal ball. On another note, is this really what counts as a heat wave in Europe. Most of the world would call this a very warm day. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC).
 * Very warm series of days. That's where the "wave" comes in. Keeps on rolling, like a news "cycle". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The mercury reached 45.1 degrees Celsius (113.2 Fahrenheit) just before 3 p.m. local time in Villevieille, in the Gard department in southern France, according to the French national weather service Météo-France." Note that Southern Europe is quite far North, e.g. Villevieille is at approximately the same latitude as Toronto. The all time record temperature reached in Toronto is only 40.6 C. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Heat waves are pretty common. Record breaking temperatures occurs quite frequently. Plus, there has been no deaths so far.  I Need Support  :3 04:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. Heat deaths that result in deaths unfortunately occur with some regularity in my area, but we don't post all such incidents on ITN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. This may prove to be a historic heat wave, but I suggest waiting at least July to find out. If before the end of June the event becomes particularly noteworthy, I would support ongoing. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:FD73:6074:3148:4F9 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the mere occurrence of the heat wave; if there are major effects of it(hopefully not), its posting can be considered then. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unless we start to see more effects, there is no reason this would be notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose even after "death toll" rises. Sick people fare better on comfortable days, like always. Climate news has just gotten more sensational, and too eager to conflate contributing factors with causes. Same goes for the North American one in a month. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a significant heat wave for Europe. Already some deaths as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Significant for those affected/afflicted, but so far the main result is discomfort. (However, this user foresees a hot market for domestic air-conditioning equipment in We$tern Europe.) – Sca (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. I would support ongoing. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment MeteoFrance have posted on Twitter that a new absolute record of 44.3 C has been recorded at Carpentras. This is provisional and may rise further this afternoon. 151.170.240.200 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opppose a heat wave striking a first-world area (when climate change has already been posted frequently) is not really ITN. We posted the heat wave in India as such an even has a much more drastic impact on a developing area, and dozens+ of deaths were reported. --M asem (t) 13:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support New record reached: "France reached its highest-ever temperature on Friday as continental Europe continues to struggle with an intense heat wave.
 * Yeah, but Toronto has concrete, mirrors, lights, smog and crowds to make that 40 C "feel like" hell. More people likely died of heat-related illness there even today than in this relatively breezy open land. Anyone even reportedly vomit? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * fwiw, Urban heat island is the term you want. --M asem (t) 16:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'm dealing with dehydration combined with mosquitoes out here in the Forgotten Lands. City folk are marginally cooler for not having to scratch themselves so much or swat at nothing. At least not before they hallucinate. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This factoid should be added to the village's article, regardless of what happens with relatively cold wider Europe and ITN. Easily the biggest thing to ever occur there. I can't paste a reference, though. Any takers? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reality check: A late-afternoon (16:00) survey Friday found Paris at 33C/91F, Rome at 35C/95F and Madrid at 39C/103F, while Berlin showed 24C/75F and London 22C/71F. The only one of those that could be described as really hot is Madrid. Nothing earthshaking. – Sca (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean earthshaking in Villevieille, where the only current highlight is the town hall's purported existence. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't we also cover the rainfall in a remote village in the Atacama desert where it hadn't rained for more than 300 years? Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's neat, too, but different. There is literally no hotter destination in all of France and its recorded history than this sleepy patch of grass nobody ever thought would amount to anything (presumably). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been dethroned already, but still has a town hall and a brief footnote in history (until it slides to fourth place, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Deaths AND record-breaking temperatures are significant. Heat waves are the deadliest extreme weather phenomenon in the US, and there seems to be a bias against reporting heat waves even if they do more damage simply because they don't get a name like hurricanes do. This heat wave has already killed 5 people. Merlin  s  orca  20:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Overexertion, drowning and being 80 during a heat wave seem to have killed the four I see. Same happens across the continent on regular days, just goes unreported for lack of timeliness. If warmth itself killed like fires, floods, winds and landslides do, it could be like they are. As it is, this wave has a name and over 99.9% of its "victims" (100% in the hottest spots, so far) will leave it feeling just relieved and perhaps a few Euros poorer. No rebuilding, no mass funeral, no memorial anniversary. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Support, suggested alt blurb – Would feel a bit strange to post this with the far more deadly Indian heat wave still on the ticker, but all-time records are falling. France saw its highest temperatures on record—45.9 C verified by the World Meteorological Organization—surpassing what was seen during the infamous 2003 European heat wave. Pretty much every record along the Mediterranean coast of France has been broken. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Cyclonebiskit Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Cyclonebiskit. Banedon (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louis Thiry

 * Comment. Looking good, . Can you access the Le Monde obituary? I'm only getting the first paragraph or so . Is there anything on his compositions, or on his personal life? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Same for me, sorry. LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not a registered reader of Le Monde so... No mention of him in Le Figaro. I'just added a link to Discogs where his performances are well listed. LouisAlain (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. As I wrote in the edit summary, somewhat IARishly; if anyone wishes to revert that's fine by me. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Fast radio burst

 * Weak oppose sounds like an incremental advance. So we know where this FRB came from, but we still don't know what it is or what caused it ... and it's just one of many unsolved problems in astronomy. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article doesn't seem properly updated, including in the lead, to explain how this latest advance builds on the two Nature papers from 2017 & 2018 cited at the end of the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do mention the relation to the earlier event in Fast radio burst, and I have now added a sentence to the lead. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that I know, what do I do? – Sca (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Dragonfly Mission to Titan

 * Oppose a lot can happen between now and 2036 when it is planned to land. Stephen 01:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Truly a titanic story – wake me up when it takes place for real. Sca (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nomination but WP:TOOSOON. Welcome to Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose'. It will be ITNR when it arrives on Titan in 2036.  Its launch may merit posting too, but not now. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not TOOSOON to announce that one billion dollars have been committed to a research project! The news is significant enough for several major news sources to dedicate in-depth articles (I have added three links to the nomination). Why? Because Titan is one of the best candidates for extraterrestrial life. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow Trump could instruct NASA to do something else, or Congress could cut funding, or any number of other things could happen that prevent this project from proceeding. When something tangible happens, like its launch, then we can consider posting. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the possibility that funding could be cut is not an argument against inclusion. There are lots of In the news stories that involve uncertain future events. See, for example, " Elliott Management is in talks to acquire the storied bookseller Barnes & Noble for roughly $476 million" (pocket change!) on June 6 and " International Space Station will be opened for commercial business in 2020 for $58 million" June 7. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note also that the Dragonfly mission already had a well-sourced, well-developed article before it was selected: see this revision. That says something about significance. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The archive for June shows no such nominations; I think you are looking at something else. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm new to In the news nominations. I thought that Portal:Current events held the archive of In the news posts. I guess I was wrong. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You aren't the first person to do that and won't be the last. No worries. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This could be considered an ongoing news item. Earlier progress was reported in the New York Times, and if the money was rescinded, that would be news too. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , for how long would this be ongoing? StudiesWorld (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Many years - its planned landing date is 2036, and of course after that would be the results and analysis. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you proposing that it stay in ongoing for that whole time? StudiesWorld (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in a formal sense because there will be long gaps with no news. But mileposts will get significant coverage, and if funding is cut, that would also be newsworthy. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not every step in this project merits posting, and it will not occupy an ongoing slot for 15 years or more. This will likely be posted at launch, and it will be posted when it arrives. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , you realize there is very little stopping you from adding it to Portal:Current events/2019 June 27. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. The main reason I have been arguing vigorously for this story is that I am trying to understand what place there is for science stories here. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose now is not the time. One only has to look at the James Webb Space Telescope to see what could go wrong with this kind of astronomical mission. Banedon (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Rucho v. Common Cause

 * Oppose posting interpretations of US law by US courts, which is a routine practice. Keep in mind that this is a global website and it probably is not big news outside the US. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed blurb is also inaccurate; they did not rule it was not a violation, they ruled that the courts cannot resolve the matter. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is landmark, it is significant, but it is not ground-breaking in that it maintains an effective status quo - that SCOTUS and federal courts will not try to judge partisan gerrymandering. It is a long-term impact since it could effectively maintain these maps, but thats in lieu of states passing laws (as suggested) against it. --M asem (t) 15:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose SCOTUS has ruled similarly for the past 45+ years and this changes nothing. Yes, this is the last time they will likely grant cert for such a case for a long time but this was to be expected and inconsequential. (But Thomas is not going to live forever. That is assuming he is the next originalist to leave the bench.) We should have posted Kennedy's retirement because that was the landmark decision. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose super-local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At the top of this page: "Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." There are other valid reasons to oppose this, but I guess that would require some effort and willingness from your side to actually engage with what is a good-faith nomination. 37.57.81.1 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Still oppose despite the learned advice provided. Local politics and of no significance to a vast majority of any of us.  That gerrymandering is even a thing is like the continual tirade of school gun slaughter we see here.  Utterly parochial and meaningless to the rest of the world.  Not worthy of our encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I (and others) are not opposing this because it is an American story; we are opposing because it is a local story. Big difference. I don't see anyone here saying the nomination was in bad faith. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * QED. 37.57.81.1 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, many contributors have mental health issues, is that why you find it so funny to add that in your edit summary? Sick.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , that makes no sense. SCOTUS is the highest judicial body in the United States, a country, and a big and important one at that. This isn't "local" news, it's national. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By 'local' I mean 'restricted to one country'. It's my understanding that we try to avoid the notion that because the US is big and important that it should get more postings.  Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's what I thought, since this is not USApedia.  The ruling here was the status quo- actually not even that, the ruling was that the court could not make a ruling. Hardly groundbreaking, unlike other cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges that (I think) we did post. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , and per the "please do not" section above, "restricted to one country" is not a valid reason to oppose. But it gets used on this page over and over again. The "hardly groundbreaking" argument you made is valid. Note that I'm not supporting this item. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between opposition due to a story being local and opposition due to a story being from America(or any country). 331dot (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would this be included in a summary of world events for 2019? Absolutely not.  It's utterly trivial and parochial.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And am I missing something? Why are people talking about mental health? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * please check the edit summary. --LLcentury (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And keep in mind that the editor who wrote that summary is now blocked. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I see. Totally inappropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above, and I'd like to add that the fact that some contributors have mental issues doesn't mean anything. I do have schizophrenia. --LLcentury (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don’t think it’s a landmark case like Obergefell - this is essentially just the Court saying it’s not going to do something. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Max Wright

 * Comment I think a multidecade media personality should have a picture on his Wiki article. I know there's rights issues around those and it's not a formal requirement for RD, but it really improves the posting on mouse-over from the main page.130.233.3.159 (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This needs a lot of work on BLP issues & sourcing, as well as actually discussing his signature role in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey and  What do you think about it now? I think I fixed all of the issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Significantly improved, thanks . I can't check the two German-language sources though my vestigial German plus Google translate suggests they might support the statement. My other remaining concern is that the two DUIs, though sourced, feel a little like undue weight in such a brief bio. I will leave this here for a few more hours in case anyone else cares to comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * About the two German-language sources, I also checked on Translate and assumed good faith from the user who included it. About the DUIs what do you suggest us to do? Because as they are sourced we can't simply take it off. We could rewrite it to fix the "undue weight"?--SirEdimon (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, so sorry to bother you with it. Did you check the article again? Do you think it's good enough? Regards and again sorry for bothering you.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello -- I did look at it last night and found it did not yet meet my personal standards for posting; it does not seem to have been substantively edited since then. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Please tell me what is missing and, if I'm able, I'll try to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added "attention needed" so that hopefully another admin will review it soon. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - this one is definitely ready for ITN. BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Doesn't meet minimum standards for me, IMO. The article states that Wright is "best known for his role as Willie Tanner on the sitcom ALF" but the article only has a single sentence about his role in that sitcom. Additionally, there are a couple remaining [CN] tags as well.  Spencer T• C 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and  (sorry for pinging you, I know that many editors don't like it) I'm doing one last effort to try to see this RD published. I fixed the CNs and I included more information about his best-known role on ALF. I'm waiting for your feedback. Thanks.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2008 Universal fire

 * Oppose - Local news.BabbaQ (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So local that the BBC are reporting it in UK. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder if there is some way to clarify that this loss was only largely discovered recently. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Covered in article, initially stated 40-50k items lost, now estimated up to 500k items lost. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Local and industry-specific news. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not remotely "local" - it covers many of the most notable musicians in the world. And most articles posted to ITN will be industry-specific or sport-specific or country-specific. No news is all-encompassing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not in love with sport-specific news either, but they receive significant support from others and I find them acceptable. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think the time to post would have been when UMG acknowledged the loss, which was at least a week ago. But even that would not be stale now. This is much bigger news than the Grammys, which are ITN/R.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on timing and scale. We would post the result of the lawsuit, but definitely not the start of one. And today $100m is tiny relative to sized of other fines or businesses news. --M asem (t)
 * Oppose – The filing of a lawsuit is the beginning of a civil case, analogous to the filing of a charge in a criminal case. For ITN, the news will be the awarding of damages, if any. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Sca that we should wait until the conclusion of the case to post it on ITN. At such time, I would certainly be willing to consider posting. Cwilson97 (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral, Leaning Oppose I'm involved with updating this page, but I don't really think this is ITN-worthy at the moment. For one, the blurb here is wrong: It's not "a large group of musicians" suing Universal, it's just five (at least right now). Also the article's list of artists needs to be updated to include the 700 affected acts that were listed by the Times yesterday. The other editors working on this page were actually working towards getting a DYK blurb, and I think that might be a better main page home for this at the moment. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for the end of the case, even if it's in three years. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality (I had to scroll down to see what date the fire happened), no deaths, and 11 years ago. Maybe support if this spreads to other news sites when the case closes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Édith Scob

 * Oppose - Filmography not sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a stub with two or three sentences on her career, and an unreferenced filmography. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very little prose in the article.  I Need Support  It has gone downhill 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Antananarivo stampede

 * Support. An important event on an important day. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality - The article needs significant expansion and improvement, but I think that giving a rarely featured country a store would be good and the death toll puts it over for me. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposupport Please tell us more. This is obviously important subject. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support Just barely enough expansion but I think this is all the information available. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Article expanded and updated. Copyediting might be needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It is still borderline, but I think it now is postable. . StudiesWorld (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's as if this ping just wasn't meant to be: . StudiesWorld (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 06:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Etika/Daniel Amofah

 * Oppose on procedural grounds. I agree with the current notability tag, so this is doubtful both as an RD and a blurb. We should be careful about picking a YouTuber or similar internet personality. Brandmeistertalk  17:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even suggesting a blurb here, but I disagree with the notability issue. If you ignore the coverage of his death, he's still notable as a YouTuber before that point. We're just getting more sources now with his death to fill in the rest. --M asem (t) 17:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now It's definitely a notable event, but the article’s quality is lacking for now. Once it improves, I will support posting the RD.  I Need Support  :3 17:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Death creates the article. Not notable individually.--WaltCip (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, if you ignore his death and events of the last week (since his disappearance) I will argue he was still notable via the GNG, we just didn't have the article created for him. It is unfortunately that we can now fill in more details with his death but that's the same for nearly any RD case we have. --M asem (t) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral because I imagine we can buff up the page, but right now, it's not quite ready. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I would agree that he passed GNG before the incident - just nobody got around to it yet. Juxlos (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Juxlos. w umbolo   ^^^  21:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, page has improved. Spengouli (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Billy Drago

 * Comment. Not horrible but far from great. The filmography needs sources, and preferably splitting into film & television. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Iván Erőd

 * Support. Nice article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 Winter Olympics

 * Support. Seems well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The article is ready to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Snow support Article looks good to me.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mu I have no idea why this would be ITNR. I find it quite uninteresting where the winter Olympics will be held in seven years time. Get back to me when it starts. Oppose in principle, but if it's ITNR then not much I can do about it, eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
 * Support but wait The 2026 Winter Paralympics article has not been written yet. I added it to the blurb. It's possible I broke protocol on that, but I do think inclusion of the Paralympics is important here. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally it looks like info about the bidding goes into a separate article from the actually games and paraolympic games - but as with the games otherwise so many years down the road, it makes sense at the present time that the current Olympic games article otherwise covers the bidding facet. Since the Paraolympics automatically happen at the same city, I don't think its necessary to include that or worry about its article at this time. --M asem (t) 19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support One CN in a sea of references. Should be fine to go. --M asem (t) 19:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Davey2116 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The announcement of the host city is listed at ITN/R & the article is in good shape. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Request, Perhaps the created 2026 Winter Paralympics article can be added to the blurb insted of the general Winter Paralympics article. Thanks.BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated. Stephen 00:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Amhara Region coup d'état attempt

 * Support once articles are finished restructuring. Even though this is a regional coup attempt, the incident is significant. We do post assassinations of politicians even at a mayoral level, and this is ITNR. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:CC55:1114:DEC:EE5F (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought ITNR meant "Current Events" section, I didn't find in ITNR plus deleted that it was. --LLcentury (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per quality improvements. Please disregard the rest of my comments in this thread. Oppose on quality, support on notability Article tagged as being in the process of restructuring. The infobox says that the event took place on "15-16 July 2016" even though the article is obviously from 2019, so it's clearly not ready to be posted. News coverage shows that the event is notable, but the quality concerns are overwhelming right now. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't understand, the coup was foiled yesterday but it apparently took place 15-16 --LLcentury (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My best guess is that the infobox was made by copying and pasting a different infobox from a different event? I would assume that means that the rest of the information in it is questionable, too. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Suspicions confirmed: they literally took the infobox from the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (which took place on 15-16 July 2016) and just pasted it into this article without bothering to replace all of the information. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was using that infobox as a template. If you read the content, it will be immediately apparent that all the information has been replaced.--Varavour (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the case at the time when I left those comments, but I appreciate the work you're doing to update the article. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on notability - The articles still aren't ready, but it definitely seems notable. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - what exactly does the article need in order to be ready? Information remains murky and there's not much more confirm-able than what what has been added. --Varavour (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work developing the article! It's much better than it was before the restructure. The only thing I'd recommend is copyediting to make the article easier to understand. I'll work on it for a while, and then it should be ready to post. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be ready now. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is ready now, great work! Davey2116 (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support big story, significant assassinations, potentially ongoing coup. Gruesome enough for ITN, it seems. Kingsif (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event which will redefines the region's politics and the article looks okay. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article shape decent. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - in the news, decent article.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I took a crack at a better blurb: "General Se'are Mekonnen (pictured), Chief of General Staff of Ethiopia, and Ambachew Mekonnen, President of the Amhara Region, are assassinated." --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Add Attorney General Migbaru Kebede also killed Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So was Major General Gizae Aberra. We have to draw the line somewhere. Migbaru Kebede was attorney general of Amhara not all of Ethiopia. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Same goes for the president, though. Not arguing for inclusion, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the blurb should mention the Chief of General Staff first. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The military has 162,000 or so active members. The region has about 31 million. One leader is clearly going to be more widely mourned, or at least better recognized. I endorse the dead president for top billing. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Istanbul Election

 *  Support altblurb Oppose  Good faith nomination, but ITN doesn't usually post municipal elections unless the circumstances are exceptional. It does appear to be a unique election due to the fact that this is a repeat of the March 2019 mayoral election, but if there's not more to the story than the June 2019 election taking place to legitimize the results of the much narrower March election, I doubt it will be posted. If there's more details that I'm ignorant of, please let me know and I'll reconsider my !vote. Struck initial !vote due to the details described below Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Something about Erdogan wanting the re-run because he said there were irregularities, hoping his party would be elected instead, but instead he lost even more votes. More Turks are losing favor for Erdogan, and it's particularly funny that he said "whoever wins Istanbul wins the country" - if he's right, the party he helped found could be kicked out of power after 18 years of authoritarianism. There's been a lot of protests, and it's actually quite a big step, but that needs to be clear. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd post in a heartbeat Erdogan's reign finally coming to an end, but if this is just a step towards that, I'm not sure. I'm still open to changing my !vote, I just need to get more educated on the important details of the story. If I'm not mistaken, this is the situation: Erdogan (as president of the nation) decided that the first election was illegitimate after his party lost, then another election was held, and his party lost even more than it did the first time. I can definitely see that being more than just local politics, but I think we need a better blurb first. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * . No international observers substantiated the concerns regarding the March election and it was overturned for purely political reasons. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's going onto MP, the blurb should give some context to the controversy and the opposition win, otherwise it seems insignificant (when did we last post the election of a mayor?!) Otherwise, oppose Added alt2 Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . Given the context, it is at least a national-level story. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, mayor of anywhere is local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , when the leader of a country intervenes to get an election result overturned, it becomes national politics. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But the result of the mayoral election is the same, no? Local politics, no long-term impact, barely in the news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I guess the situation would be the story and this is the most complete point at which to post it. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would add that this is the only election since 1999 where a party other than Erdogan's won the city, with the first mayor of his party being Erdogan himself. Definitely historic for Turkey itself, not just Istanbul. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, still local politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The Istanbul election has been making international headlines for months now. Sometimes, local politics do affect national or international affairs. Supertanno (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Istanbul is re-conquered against quarter century Erdoğan rule. OnurT 21:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a historical result. In my opinion ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support historical moment. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Every election that tosses out the ruling party is "historic". This is still a local election. If it leads to more, then we can see what happens. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt3 – İmamoğlu increased his margin over Erdoğan protegé Yildirim from a scant 13,000 in March to 775,000. Sure, it's local, but it's significant in a country dominated by Erdoğan's ruling AKP party. Keep in mind that Istanbul is a city of 15 million in a pivotal country of 82 million (about the same as Germany). – Sca (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This mas major repercussions for Turkish politics, and, in a city more populous than most (38/50) European countries, is more than ITN worthy. --Varavour (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. By this logic, we should have posted the 2017 United States Senate special election in Alabama because it was a "defeat" for Donald Trump. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite a different scale and situation. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but in the opposite way; a state/provincial level election, especially to a national legislative body, is more influential than an election to a city/municipal office. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , there are way more people in Istanbul than in Alabama. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, it doesn't change what I said. If the Mayor of Istanbul serves in Turkey's national legislature, that would be different. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose We should really be careful to elevate major city mayoral elections as having national importance. I recognize the importance here but it's still speculation that it will have an impact in the future. Same can be said about may city elections. --M asem (t) 00:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that, it's reflected in my comment above, but it has definitely already had an impact in the fact that Erdogan had the election recalled and then lost nearly a million extra votes. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as pleasing, ironic, and funny the results may be to me (us?), this does not rise in "importance" to the level we expect for ITN. It is a sign but not necessarily definite proof of changing times. The article easily qualifies for DYK (expanded 5x since yesterday) and would make an awesome hook. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose whatever else it might be, it's still a local-level elections and those aren't usually featured on ITN. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A story of national-level significance per above, definitely in the news, and the article is in good shape. I believe it fits the ITN criteria. Davey2116 (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Domestic politics irrespective of the media hype. Unnecessarily periphrastic alt-blurbs. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - significant city, in the news.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Suggested second-day reading: "For Turkey’s Erdogan, a challenge in his former stronghold", "Erdogan's party suffers blow after Istanbul re-run poll defeat" , "The unexpected new hope for Turkish democracy" . – Sca (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which still remains speculation about Erdogan's chances in the next national election. We shouldn't be running local-level elections without a clear directive on how the national politics will change. --M asem (t) 13:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: definitely in every news outlet.--MaoGo (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Istanbul is a city that has population more than 38 European countries, it would have been 13th biggest country in Europe. Also, the outcome of this election along with 2019 Turkish local elections, make a great effect in future Turkish politics.--Joseph (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Big cities have mayors. Small cities have mayors.  It's still local politics.  And not in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local election, not significant enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Local politics Sherenk1 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We opposed a blurb the first time round because it's a local election only. The fact it's an undoubtedly significant local election, even more so with the re-run, still doesn't alter it's only a local election. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I do have to point out there's a certain bias in reporting this local election. As mentioned by other users at the time of the first nomination, there's something off about reporting a single anti-AKP victory, when the Turkish local elections as a whole were an AKP victory.  88.215.17.228 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 3. This isn't just a story about who's going to be a city mayor.  The story here is the biggest rebuff to the dominant AKP in its eighteen-year history, and a severing of much of its local patronage network.  That has significance well outside Turkey.  Jheald (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable and relevant; based on Erdognan's own words. Rockstone   talk to me!   23:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that this is notable, but there's no blurb I can support. The alts are clumsy and perhaps a bit editorial, and the original makes it seem that the winner was the incumbent. This ordeal would have been an excellent candidate for an on-going item when Ergodan originally called for a new vote, but this particular twist of the story doesn't seem suitable as a stand alone.91.153.84.73 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as local politics...with a transnational geopolitical impact. ——  SerialNumber  54129  05:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2. International impact. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Bartholomew

 * Support - Seems well referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have requested a couple of sources and would like someone to confirm that the present ref 6 to "Black Cat Rockabilly" is reliable; it looks to me to be a fansite and is being used to support at least one contentious claim. Also, there's little/no information on his personal life beyond WW2. His wife is briefly mentioned (sourced to a deadlink) but there is little else. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added sources where requested. What is the "contentious" claim?  My experience of the Black Cat Rockabilly site (over at least the last decade) is that it is very accurate and reliable (far more so than, for example, Allmusic).  It is written by acknowledged experts in what is a relatively specialized field (R&B and early rock and roll).  However, other sources do exist for much of the material and can be used if preferred.  If there is little about Bartholomew's personal life, it is because little has been published, though more details may emerge in obituaries.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC) PS: Now further updated, expanded, etc., and no "Black Cat Rockabilly" citations remain.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

per FYC. --LLcentury (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Žarko Varajić

 * Support. Seems bad referenced, but good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Largely unsourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppse - not ready. More referencing needed.BabbaQ (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Béteille

 * Support - Seems to be fine to me.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 European Games

 * Oppose no blurb offered. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if the nominator provides a blurb, they should probably do one or both of the following: 1) wait until the European Games have concluded and nominate a blurb mentioning which country ultimately wins the games 2) re-nominate as ongoing for the time being. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 07:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say something something about how we've even got cricket in ongoing so surely this should be, but people would take me seriously. —Cryptic 10:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing 50 nations participating in a multi-day multi-sport event. Maybe the medals table is better, whatever we do for the olympics. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in the news, this is a minor event compared to the ITN/R ones. Just do a Google News search for "2019 European Games Minsk" and see the, er, complete lack of mainstream coverage.  The article has 151 references, but 95% of them are either (a) the games' own website or associated ones (b) from Belarus, where it's being held, or (c) from sports bodies.  And most of the ones that don't fall into those three categories (refs 6-14) aren't actually about the games, but the fact that the Netherlands bid for it and then pulled out. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is, the 2019 Cricket World Cup is a more important sporting event? LOL --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, given the mainstream news coverage of it (Google News is your friend here), yes, by at least two orders of magnitude. Erm, LOL. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's accurate to say there's a "complete lack of mainstream coverage." I did a quick search and found BBC, ABC, USA Today, etcetera covering the games. It certainly doesn't get the same kind of coverage that other games would (though this is only the second time that the European Games have ever taken place) but I wouldn't say that coverage is too scarce to make a blurb out of after the games are over. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, though. Take the BBC. If you look - for example - at the BBC sports page at the moment, there are 39 stories and this isn't one of them. It's even sixth on the athletics page. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to a real lack of coverage. I bet most people didn't even know such a thing existed, let alone was taking place. And it looks like one of the many qualification routes for the Olympics.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most people do not know what cricket is... --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's five days of sandwiches, tea breaks and rain. Amazing entertainment.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ongoing You posted the first games in 2015. These should be blurbed too 5.44.170.9 (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, we didn't, as far as I can see. In_the_news/Candidates/June_2015. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as a European who was aware that the games were underway, the coverage is too minimal, and the event itself lacking in significance, to justify posting. Precedent of previous listings is not especially applicable, and the fact that cricket exists is also a moot point (though arguments that it isn't either in the news or of interest to our readers remain |2019_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup|2019_European_Games ridiculous). Stormy clouds (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the views of these articles through a link on the Main Page. --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And ... completely untrue, again. You're making a habit of this. The Women's World Cup got 200,000 views on 7 June, but wasn't added to the Main Page until late on the 8th June.  The Cricket World Cup got between 70,000 and 140,000 views every day from the start of June to the 13th ... when it wasn't on the Main Page (it was added on the 14th).  The European games has managed 19,000 views maximum on any one day. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - as someone who authors the Top 25 Report, I can assure you that a ITN listing will not drive anywhere near the volume of traffic required to get onto the report, as demonstrated. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Marginally known competition. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Demetris Christofias

 * Oppose insufficient referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Referencing needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have added some references. Xaris333 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still woefully under-referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Hong Kong Protests

 * Support per nom. I'm convinced this meets the criteria for Ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "there is no apparent end in sight" well that's part of the problem isn't it? Ongoing items without a definite end seem very hard to pry out of the box. A million people protested June 9, how many on June 21 (the tiny update for that day doesn't say)? The article is quite good, and I thank Merlinsorca for evaluating the update frequency before nominating. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Because it might go on too long" shouldn't be a deciding factor for consideration, though. If the event happens to last a long time (and continues to be updated), I don't see a problem there. Merlin  s  orca  23:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The phony Venezuelan crisis was in the box for three months -- it's reasonable to discuss exit criteria for an Ongoing item before it goes in. So how many people showed up on June 21? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which crisis/article are you referring to? I think it's perfectly fine to discuss it each time we want to remove it, but if you want my opinion for removal criteria, then it'd be after they reach some agreement that decisively ends the protests. All the sources I've found say it's "thousands" on June 21:   Merlin  s  orca  01:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for nominating this article. There's not a concrete number on the protesters on June 21 as protesters are decentrailized to different government buildings. But like Merlinsorca mentioned, the article only includes notable protests and demostrations. I believe big protests will end when the government decides to retract the "riot" characterization / release the protesters. Maybe that's the time when we could remove the article. –Wefk423 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. As for when we remove it, we remove it when there's a consensus that it no longer meets the criteria. It's simple; there shouldn't be a criteria that we predict when/how it'll stop being ongoing before marking it as ongoing. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this is classic ongoing. Ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

U.S. drone shot down

 * Support Article looks good, and covers a notable news story that will be relevant to many readers. Merlin  s  orca  18:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Trump reportedly canceled the military response, so this could be a fuss in the long-term. Brandmeistertalk  19:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral Yes, its causing major worldwide political strife particularly between US and Iran, and all the comments around possible counterstirke are furthering this. BUT it is a flash in the pan to speak. Assuming all it is doing is escalating tensions but no further attacks come out of it, it really amounts to nothing in the long term. Hence I would fight against posting this but think its not required. --M asem (t) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will state I'm opposed to ongoing for this. Yes, the story will be in the news for a while but it's already in the downward spiral - it created a brief jump in tensions but both US and Iran are backing off further hostilities. If that changes, then we can reconsider. --M asem (t) 04:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless this incident in particular actually does spark a US-Iranian war (which doesn’t seem to be case according to Trump), this is rather a just update to the ongoing tensions between the hostilities of the two nations. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:5963:8D8D:9F60:E8E9 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing the drama has been building for some time, Iran–United States relations is a good target, gets regular, high quality updates. Two tanker attacks and this inside of a few months is highly consequential. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing I agree with LaserLegs. I think that ongoing better captures the context for this event. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Can we accuse Iran of defending its airspace instead of continuing to escalate tensions? The news is mostly to blame for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose a more neutral blurb. It should include the escalation of tensions, without assigning blame. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Amidst escalating tensions, yadda yadda, defending its airspace." Allegedly or reportedly, if you want. Even just the first tweak wouldn't hurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe Alt 1 Lesser of two evils. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing seems like the more appropriate route to me. Teemu08 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing – A major news story that continues to develop by the day. Kurtis (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Masem. The drone itself isn't particularly important; what made it so notable was that this briefly put the US and Iran on the brink of war with one another, but that crisis was thankfully averted rather quickly. Does that make the event any less notable? I don't know. Is ongoing appropriate here? I don't know either; the drone situation is already over. What would we post to ongoing? Iran–United States relations? That would be odd, because the target article wouldn't really be an event. If we have a viable target article for an ongoing event, then I'll easily support ongoing, but it doesn't seem right to post that the relations are ongoing. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The relations article is getting regular updates, including the drone incident, both tankers and the rhetoric. There is a subsection for the 2019 escalations which is getting regular, quality updates. Seems like an adequate target to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The relations article notes they've been ongoing since the Crimean War ended and RMS Persia was cool. I think the wizard's onto something here. Why start now, of all points in time? Because it's trending? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it's "In the news" isn't it? Which is sort of the point of the box .... --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They'll be ongoing after leaving the news, too. Would we pull it when one country is no more, or sooner? At least the standalone shootdown has a contemporary beginning and end. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Alt 1 but oppose ongoing for this target article. We need something like 2019 Iran–United States escalation in tensions (now a redirect) for a good ongoing. There is also no reason why it can't go to ongoing after it is blurbed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to WP:CFORK for ongoing but not a blurb? What is the value in duplicating the content? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting forking right now. I only pointed out that the current target article suggested is not suitable for ongoing. We should post a blurb now and by the time it rolls off we will have a clearer idea of whether it is ongoing. Notice the Iran–U.S. relations article now has three events we posted as blurb. A fourth event will surely require a content fork. Iran–United States relations has many sourcing issues. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's why I think it should be a blurb and not ongoing:
 * 1) There's precedent. The Gulf of Oman incident was posted as a blurb yet only a few non-military ships were damaged and there were 0 deaths.
 * 2) I'd argue this is more notable because here Iran is deliberately shooting down a U.S. military asset and not denying it.
 * 3) Trump was going to strike Iran, possibly killing 150 and starting a war, but apparently backed off in the last 10 minutes.
 * I think this event stands well enough alone. Many readers are going to be interested in this specific event (where a war almost happened), rather than a sprawling article on the general relationship between two countries. Merlin  s  orca  05:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose many things in life "escalate tensions", this is just one example. And now nothing has come of it, time to move on and wait for the next "escalating" moment in this decades-old conflict. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anonymous sources confirm Iran possesses short-range Caspian tigers and Saudi Arabia commands a traveling Tiger Squad. Could get interesting. Remember the outrage when Copenhagen dismembered  just one common giraffe? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt it could get interesting, but this sort of thing happens all the time, and unless it actually does escalate, it's just business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite so, old chap. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed the weather gets hot, and cold, and windy, and rainy ... balls are kicked, prime ministers replaced, old men die. Seems just about everything in the box has happened before, and yet, it is "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The first blurb somewhat gives the impression that this is a major escalation and it was caused by Iran shooting down the drone, while the escalation may have been caused by the alledged airspace violation. --Z 08:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and consider ongoing when the blurb drops off the main page. This is an obvious case of serious international business that should be top priority for the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Much rhetoric & media babble, no casualties. (Regarding the abortive U.S. retaliatory strike, one might even suspect elaborate political/military theater for the domestic and global opinion markets.) – Sca (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Trump orders military strike then calls it off" is not exactly a page-turner of a story. Ongoing isn't suitable either because we are currently in status quo. No serious escalation or ongoing activity is occurring to warrant a posting. Only if action significantly ramps up will this be noteworthy. Right now, it's just mutual Saber-rattling. WaltCip (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support either blurb or ongoing. This is a highly significant story. Davey2116 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Four supports, four opposes and four votes for ongoing isn't consensus any way you look at it. Deleted "ready." – Sca (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - 'piece of machinery destroyed with no casualties' isn't MP-worthy. The tensions may boil over into something, but I'm with WaltCip: it's just mutual sabre-rattling. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment retaliatory cyber attacks - the first since cyber command gained combat status - it seems like the situation with Iran is "ongoing"? --LaserLegs (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is seeing plenty of coverage in mainstream media, and is likely to keep seeing coverage. Why wouldn't we feature this? Banedon (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready five supports for a blurb and four for ongoing (which is a support in principle for posting this story to the box) does indeed consensus make. No need to remove it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More hype. Unconfirmed cyber attacks outlined by unidentified U.S. "officials" pose little additional significance three days after the event. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A US drone was shot down by Iran is the only factual element of this story. Everything else is a massive amount of rumormongering, conjecture, sabre-rattling, and other facets that WP and particularly ITN should not be playing wag the dog with. Should some military event emerge from all that that can be factually shown true, then we can talk a story. --M asem (t) 14:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "not ready" is really "I'm still opposed to this". Sorry boys, you had your oppose already, lots of comments, time for someone uninvolved to decide. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "five supports for a blurb and four for ongoing": please don't forget there are also six opposes that need to be taken into account. That's not a strong consensus for anything at all. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Even my Maybe leans slightly toward opposition, if it has to count for something. Just kinda neat to learn a machine specially designed to avoid exactly this didn't. Certainly against ongoing, pending indication of when or how relations might hypothetically conclude. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Others may disagree, but in my opinion I don't see a consensus for any course of action at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a strong view on this either way, but I've removed the "Ready" because it's clear there isn't any consensus at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As explained previously, in the world of news it means what Franklin ostensibly said about fish and house guests (although that may be an apocryphal quote). — A three-day-old news story without further developments is getting stale, any Wiki rulebook assertions notwithstanding.


 * Comment Although we're divided on blurb vs. ongoing, there's a clear consensus that this event is significant enough to be posted. Davey2116 (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all: there seems to be considerable opposition to this - and on valid grounds too. (That's not to belittle the support votes or their rationale, but an acknowledgement that over a third of the !votes are opposing this, and no agreement between the other 2/3rds on what should happen. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Considerable, yes; but exactly how many !votes are needed for consensus? 2/3 seems pretty good. That that 2/3 is split on blurb vs. ongoing should not favor posting nothing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While the news is covering all the saber-rattling on this between US and Iran, it is still saber-rattling. Outside of the drone being shot down, no other events have occurred, and we should not be posting any posturing between two countries. --M asem (t) 16:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemic
If you look at the edit history you'll see changes every day but that isn't the same as updates every day. There are fixing refs, content reorgs, clarifications, but no substantial updates beyond death toll counter. This event has been "ongoing" since 2018 -- over a year. Are we really going to have it in the box until some period when no one is diagnosed as having contracted Ebola? This was a WP:MINIMUMDEATHS posting that should never have been ongoing, is not being continuously updated and needs to come out. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now at least. The revision history shows at least four dozen new revisions in the last few days, and those revisions do include non-minor substantial changes (such as introducing new paragraphs). I certainly don't agree with the assessment that it never should've been posted to begin with. As for whether or not it's still "in the news," I did a quick search and found several headlines from today alone that could be used to further update the article. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw moved paragraphs, not new ones. Did I miss a substantial update newer than the oldest blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is an important article with good quality. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "important" has nothing to do with the WP:ITN so that justification basically has no value. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove there looks like there's been about one sentence of prose added relating to events over the last week, this isn't enough as noted in the nom. And  it's certainly no longer headline news. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – Per previous. Sca (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove. More days have passed since this nomination, still no substantive update. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 00:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup

 * You have this as an Ongoing nomination, not ITNR. Is that your intention? 331dot (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, suggest close and re-nominate when it's done. The Copa America isn't recurring either. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, my bad, I wasn't thinking; sorry for the inconvenience. BenevolentBeast (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eddie Garcia

 * Support - I'd like to see a ref for the show being cancelled because of his death, but it's not a deal breaker for me. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still some work needed - I see at least two paragraphs with no references at all.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not referenced sufficiently and I'm unclear how there can be any justification for the use of a non-free image of him when two free images co-exist in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the non-free image has been removed. Can you be more specific about the lack sufficient references? --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I see the issue now. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved in comparison when I first started working on it. It's good enough for sustain. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peng Xiaolian

 * Posted Stephen 00:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Indian heat wave

 * Support – Meets WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I might suggest that you avoid citing a nonexistent guideline in expressing support. If you feel that the level of casualties merits posting an event, simply say that.  Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was an ill-conceived attempt at sarcasm, intended as commentary on my opinion that this should have been posted the first time. I apologize. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably my fault -- I have found that anything I support here tends not to be posted, irrespective of whether or not I actively support the posting in discussion and/or updates. I stayed silent this time, and lo and behold. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support now (Alt1 - avoids superlatatives) - just a heat wave happening, as was nominated before, isn't much, but now appreciable death toll makes this a grave matter. I know that the outbreak story has elemenets that tie to this heat wave (The spread of the infection partially heightened by the heat) so there may be a potential to combine these two blurbs, but I am not passionate that this has to be done. --M asem (t) 14:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So then there aren't much worst diasters/weather events going on to make this a minor inconvenience for those suffering.? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 seems quite simple, updated, meets requirement. Agree with Masem that it could be combined but not necessary. Kingsif (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as appears to be record-breaking.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on both notability per above and on article quality. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 17:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per the rest.BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Alt3 blurb offered above – revised re syn, tense, punct. However, article still needs language editing. – Sca (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "at least 184" with "dozens" killed elsewhere? The only thing giving this any notability is a death toll that can't even be quantified. Violence over water: when? Some dead monkeys: (who cares) and when? "Water has been poured onto roads": where? when? Article is very light, basically a mess of factoids stitched together from various WP:RS with no coherent explanation of the topic. No thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Also Chennai is almost entirely out of water. Count Iblis (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Agreed. I was reading a little earlier about how this has exacerbated Chennai's already pretty serious water crisis, which from the article above makes Cape Town's look like nothing (and that's saying something given that all of us at Wikimania last year got to experience it firsthand, although at least Day Zero had been called off for a while. Sounds like Chennai's already there, just won't say so). Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the heat wave article doesn't mention a water shortage at all. With a wall of support, this nom is sure to be posted, but the article .... so bad. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would not include the water crisis with the heat wave. The heat wave is exasperating the water crisis (more demand, more evaporation), but the water crisis is a process that began long before with misuse and pollution of water sources, coupled with climate change. --M asem (t) 02:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Unprecedented in severity, high death toll and the article looks okay. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment with near-universal support, is there any good reason that this hasn't been posted, like a day ago? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * obviously my lone oppose was powerful enough to delay posting (though not enough to call attention to the poor quality of the target article). As an aside, unlike the brain disease or heat wave, the water shortage actually popped up "in the news" today. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. I combined parts of the first two suggested blurbs. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment/question – The verb "leaves" implies the heat wave is over. Is that the case? – Sca (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources say the heat wave is going on in some areas.  Merlin  s  orca  13:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be rephrased like "At least 184 people are killed in a heatwave in India." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shona Dunlop MacTavish

 * Support - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Killian
Comment The substantive content is well-sourced, but not the list of published works. I would assume that wouldn't be too hard to cite, though. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - overall ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - looks fine. I'm not generally too concerned with sourcing for published works, as they can be easily verified with the authority control links at the bottom such as WorldCat. -Zanhe (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We DO need sourcing for published works - and it has to be in the vicinity of the section, not lost in the impedimenta at the foot of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have added ISBNs. This is ready to go. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment looks alright but should be listed under 15 June. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now for quality reasons. Currently we have: an unformatted reference that links to LiveJournal, and a single sentence saying he died without explaining how (the reference for this is poets.org). Merlin  s  orca  18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Mohamed Morsi

 * Support. Just was about to nominate it myself here. Ben5218 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppport - but needs semi-protection first imo.  nableezy  - 16:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC) is semi'd now
 * Comment should be worth a blurb I would have thought. A very well known world leader and his death was in the middle of a political court case. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and I would also support blurb since his presidency was clearly transformative and had global effects. Davey2116 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. Because he was an Egyptian politician who served as the fifth President of Egypt. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - WP:STRONG. Also, RD nominations are not dependent on notability, only article quality. If you support the posting of a blurb, you should probably specify so, and provide a rationale beyond his former job title. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that... thank you. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb as written, no "in court" or "according to."  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - as written, per GreatCaesarsGhost. Event is still recent and some new details may emerge. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support on Blurb RD is obvious, there's only one current CN I see but that's in a sea of references, so shape is fine. Blurb is of interest as elected leader of a major country and that he died during this trial. --M asem (t) 19:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb the unexpected death of an ex-head of state in court is blurb worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ... Alt1 – I see no reason not to include the fact that he died during his trial in the blurb. There's nothing exaggerated or sensationalized about that; it's an essential element of the event. Consider: "Egypt's ousted president Mohammed Morsi dies during trial" (BBC), "Egypt’s ousted president Morsi dies in court during trial" (AP), "Mohamed Morsi, ousted president of Egypt, dies in court" (Guardian), "Egypt former president Morsi dies after falling ill in court" (AFP). Article looks good. – Sca (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – A major figure in Egyptian politics over the course of the past decade, owing largely to the fact that he was the nation's first (and thus far only) democratically elected President. I prefer Alt1; the manner and circumstances of his death are noteworthy. Kurtis (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. The death of a person who was, as Kurtis correctly identifies, his country's only democratically elected leader ever, while on trial for political charges, is clearly a matter of significance warranting a blurb. I also agree that Alt1 is preferable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, prominent figure and unexpected death circumstances. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb "old man dies of heart attack". Not Thatcher or Mandela level of notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Still very much in the game at 67. Death actually shaped political and legal history, instead of merely reminding. Not "Gloria Vanderbilt old", like some people have been. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb. Death of a former head of state under exceptional circumstances. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Image? good quality image on his page we can use. Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll swap it in a bit, we only just put the golfer up. Stephen 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting blurb support. Clearly huge, Egyptian junta claims another victim 5.44.170.9 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gloria Vanderbilt

 *  Oppose  at the moment - too much is unreferenced. Hopefully that will be fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Post-posting strike of oppose, given the clean-up. Nice work all those involved. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support citations added, should be sufficiently referenced for the MP now. MurielMary (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are still an awful lot of unsupported statements/paragraphs there - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More tidying up done. MurielMary (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been a significant improvement. But after a cursory look, I notice at least six instances where a citation is lacking at the end of the paragraph. That is a minimum requirement, for me at least. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support has been improved and is good enough for posting IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Improved greatly since I last looked. Davey2116 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting supports yesterday: there are still FIVE citation needed tags on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - all CN tags dealt with --DannyS712 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 U.S. Open

 * Strongly Oppose. The article is lacking in sufficient prose to justify posting at present. The 2019 French Open was not accepted. So this article does not deserve either. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per above and because there's nothing significant about it. Rockin 13:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The event is WP:ITN/R so its significance is not being debated here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019 French Open was too, but here we are... MSN12102001 (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * French Open was not posted due to quality of the article. That event is ITNR, but as we state several times, that only assures importance, the article quality must be there and as pointed out when it was in ITNC, there was nearly no prose in the sea of tables (and there still isn't). This case at least shows some attempt to write prose to explain things beyond the table. --M asem (t) 14:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's not relevant. The French Open article wasn't wasn't posted because there was a clear consensus that it wasn't good enough, not that it wasn't significant enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support Every round does have a prose summary, so it probably just about passes. But it would be nice to have a bit more detail.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per Pawnkingthree. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Would like to see more prose but I think that's the type of thing to come in time, rather than immediately. Otherwise not seeing lack of sources. --M asem (t) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough, prose portion has been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Bihar encephalitis outbreak
*Oppose for now: The topic of the article is undeniably noteworthy; however, the length and coverage of the article are not currently sufficient for posting to ITN. Once it has been expanded suitably, I will support the nomination. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Opppse too short, cause unknown. As a reader it doesn't give me enough detail. I'm unmoved by death toll. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is perhaps one of the most heartless things I've ever heard on Wikipedia. To say that you are unmoved by the deaths of more than 100 children is quite appalling. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RGW. Is posting this poor quality to the main page going to bring them back? Nope. Will it prevent more deaths? Hardly. The WP:ITN of ITN is to highlight quality articles for topics which are in the news, not to think of the children. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are misconstruing my comment. I was speaking to the lack of empathy and humanity in your statement. I was not referring to the quality of the article. I agree with you that the article should not be posted to ITN in its current state due to being too short, which is why I did not put a 'Support' comment beneath yours. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in stating that, but notwithstanding the quality of the article, saying that the deaths of more than one hundred children is unremarkable is still appalling. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When you've been around ITN for long enough, I suppose it's only natural to become jaded by statistical phenomena, even something that would normally be jarring such as the deaths of children.--WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with being jaded, I just don't consider death toll as a factor in these stories (except maybe for a Fish kill). It's either in the news with a quality update or it's not. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  Wait  – Article requires further development from additional sources. For one thing, it omits any mention of lychees as a possible cause – cited in earlier reporting and in today's BBC story. (Cf. third paragraph of our lychee article.) – Sca (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support I just expanded a few things (including Sca's point about lychees), and while still short, is going to be as much as we can probably expect at this point given this is a poverty-stricken area of Northern India where news is slow to come out of. --M asem (t) 15:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason we're using the spelling litchi when our article uses lychee, AFAIK the more common spelling? Sca (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea, the National Post used it, but I see the BBC didn't . I 've flipped the spelling. --M asem (t) 21:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Great work by Nizil Shah! I've struck my reservations. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Wait / Temporary oppose on quality Clearly a notable story, but it's not ready to be posted at this time. The article looks like it's still developing (and so is the story as far as I know). I'll strike this !vote once the article is in a noticeably better shape, which should be expected as more information becomes available.  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem: this has started in early June, and has been a very slow development. There has been very little Western coverage of it, and the bulk of the coverage when I did some additions this morning is India newspapers reporting the same information. This is the type of case where I cannot see it developing any further unless the outbreak spreads significantly or it ends, and review and analysis of the causes will be months down the road. Maybe there will be more this week, but I'm not expecting a great expansion on this. This is where IAR related to article length should be considered. --M asem (t) 03:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the article was created fewer than 24 hours ago & was greatly substantiated by you and Nizil Shah, but if the current version is in fact as substantiated as we can reasonably expect, I'll flip to a weak support. The referencing is adequate, and I'd probably rate the article as start class for now, but ideally I'd like to see a little more detail about the event itself (one of the ~3 thorough paragraphs is about the disease rather than the outbreak). I'll see if there's anything I can find to add to the article. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What, except for the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS establishes notability here? The article says 85 dead at one medical center, there isn't even a clear idea of the number of causalities. The lack of western coverage is irrelevant, find some domestic coverage and get a decent article. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , and others. I have updated, expanded and reorganized the article. The cause of the outbreak is unclear so I have added details on it. The response section is also expanded. More inputs/suggestions are welcome. Please reconsider your votes. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks good. Good work on expanding the article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 – After some language tweaks, article passes muster. (Alt1 corrected to 'northeastern.') – Sca (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready. – Sca (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment now that it's up, can someone please perform a copy edit since we're featuring grammar like this on the main page: "The malnourished children lack buffer stock of sugar as glycogen in the liver which put them on increased risk of hypoglycemia" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Argentina and Uruguay blackout

 * Oppose Aging infrastructure fails, this isn't news. Unless it caused a major number of deaths (eg hospital patients dying) or the like, this is an unfortunate event. --M asem (t) 14:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm pretty sure wiping out electricity to two entire countries and heavily impacting a third counts as 'news'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle : As mentioned above, this is an extraordinarily noteworthy event. I really do not understand the logic of an event 'having to cause deaths' to be notable. That is ridiculous. However, the article is currently too short, and needs to be expanded at least a little before it should be posted to ITN. The article is now long enough for posting. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a blackout caused by failures of high voltage lines, but even within hours, power was getting restored. Lives were inconvinenced, not threatened. --M asem (t) 14:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  Conditional Support pending some expansion . A wholesale blackout affecting several countries simultaneously is significant enough. Brandmeistertalk  15:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a large area of the world to lose power all at once ... a lot more than the Northeast blackout of 2003, and we have an article on that even though it lasted only 10 hours where I live. Blurb should be amended to note that not all of Argentina is out (Tierra del Fuego, isolated from the country's grid, still has power, which is good for them since it's very cold and dark down there this time of year. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. As mentioned above, this is a remarkable event that affects several countries and millions of people. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless something like cyber terrorism is involved, and so far, no impact noted beyond inconvenience.  Probably ought not even have an article, just a one-liner in each country's recent history section. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Limited lasting impact.  Spencer T• C 18:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Time to pull the plug on this one.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's no longer so shocking. Sca (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – More a commentary on regional conditions than a significant event. Unsee reports of casualties. – Sca (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see how it's insignificant for such a large country to have such a widespread outage (especially when said outage also affects many of its neighboring countries) in which millions of people were affected. Take out "most of Argentina" and put in "most of the US/UK" and it would more likely than not get posted shortly after power is restored. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would still oppose if it as in the US or Europe under the same conditions. It inconvenienced people for a few hours, it didn't put anyone in at any major risk (it would be different if this were the middle of a terrible winter). (It only affected 43M people so this would be like if the US eastern seaboard felt offline). --M asem  (t) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if nuclear power stations started going south, it's a story. If beer gets slightly warmer, it's not a story. Next.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's definitely the first time I've ever heard "it only affected 43 million people" as if that's a small scope (side note: it actually affected 48 million people) Additionally, you're saying "it inconvenienced people for a few hours" past tense. Nowhere is there any indication that it's over. Uruguay is recovering but not recovered, and barely any Argentines have power back at this time. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, I understand what you're trying to say. We've had power cuts in the UK for days on end after e.g. weather events.  So what?  If there's a real consequence, let me know.  But otherwise, no need to respond, I get your point of view, I just don't agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per BrendonTheWizard. Banedon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added a new altblurb in response to new details. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong tense. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Thanks. I've fixed it. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A power outage affecting multiple countries and tens of millions of people is very noteworthy. The loss of lives or lack thereof is not the only factor that determines the notability of an event like this, but also the economic damage, international news coverage and reactions, etc. EternalNomad (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, but what is the economic damage, international reactions etc? They're not even mentioned in the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. 48 million people is quite a lot. It's kind of a major news story in those countries? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the Venezuelan blackout went into "Ongoing" without much fanfare at all, I think we can blurb this. The article is actually pretty good too for a change there is no wall of "reactions" or phony "background" to pork it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting the significant geopolitical implications of the Venezuelan blackout, was of a longer duration, and had significant impacts. Conversely, the impacts of the South American blackout currently described in the article are: 1. Be careful with water use; 2. Use cell phone lights to fill out ballots for local elections; 3. Go to the hospital if using electric medical equipment at home and don't have a generator. I don't think the comparison between them is fair, but if there are additional impacts for the SA blackout, those should be added to the article.  Spencer T• C 22:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What "significant geopolitical implications"? Maduro didn't start that brush fire, no matter how badly the rightists want to blame him for every stubbed toe in Venezuela. We posted the Indian blackout too a few years ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – But please no puffery (i.e. "major") on the Main Page. "a blackout" is good enough. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - there appear to be minimal lasting impacts of the blackout, with power being rapidly restored, and it lacks the extenuating circumstances of the Venezuela blackouts, but the sheer number of people affected pushes this beyond the threshold of significance needed for a blurb for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Huge blackout, in the news. Opposers fail to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The blackout is well and truly over, and thus the newsworthiness of this item is rapidly approaching nil.--WaltCip (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet googling the word "blackout" covers my browser with dozens of articles published in the just last 4 hours. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And ITN is not a news ticker. It doesn't matter how much it dominates the news cycle, only that it is in the news cycle as a starting point. --M asem (t) 02:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Top story in my news feed here in Indonesia as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - major blackout affecting five countries. Article short but covers the basics and is fully referenced. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Although it was a huge blackout across three nations, and investigations by the Argentine government are underway, most power has been restored and the story is practically over. jack chango   talk  06:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready article is ok, and I see a consensus that although it was "short" the scale is significant enough. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Given that it is already over, like others above I don't see sufficient encyclopedic value in this to post it to ITN. This was an interesting news story for the "breaking news" tickers at the time it took place, but now it is more just a footnote in history and there is no evidence of either terrorism or loss of life from the incident. I also dispute that this is "ready" - it seems to be clearly in no consensus territory at the moment and the concerns of the opposers haven't been addressed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Power may have been restored. But the story is still on the front page of BBC World News website: . Energy Minister Gustavo Lopetegui said it would take 10-15 days for the results of the investigation to be published .Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, alongside the other stories, "Iran to breach enriched uranium limit in 10 days", "Indonesia bus crashes as passenger grabs the wheel", "Apology after police threaten to shoot black family", "Magician feared drowned in river after Houdini trick" and lots of other things, most of which are not being proposed for inclusion on the main page. The key point here is that ITN is not a news ticker, whereas the BBC World webpage probably is. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, most days, other world news exists, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - yes, nobody immediately died, but two entire countries lost power. Not all ITNs have to be double digit deaths or sports events. Juxlos (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - massive power loss in multiple countries, reported on as front page news by WP:RS worldwide, is a notable event. -- The Anome (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see enough long-term significance here for ITN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the name of the article should be changed to "Southern Cone blackout" or "Argentina and Uruguay blackout" or something similar to make it more regionally explicit. This is South America, more blackouts may occurs and if another one happens in another part, we would have to add a more explicit date and more details in the title anyway.--MaoGo (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seemingly a very rare event. If there was another in 2019, the article name could be adjusted then. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - When creating the article, I wondered about titling, but I thought that it would be unlikely that a multi-country blackout would occur again in South America this year. If it does, we can add a month. See the change in titling for the Gulf of Oman incident. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Venezuelan blackouts affected a small portion of Brazil, but they are still called Venezuelan blackouts. I think Southern cone blackouts wouldn't hurt (other options can be considered)--MaoGo (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above, significant event. Davey2116 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, blackout of a significant scale, President Mauricio Macri described the blackout as "unprecedented", a definition shared by some outlets. It should be noted that the blackout also affected parts of Paraguay, and if possible I would like to ask to add this to the blurb. A blackout affecting three countries is news worthy. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - How is altblurb4? StudiesWorld (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I would prefer not to include the population, since I think it may be arbitrary depending on how it is counted, but I wouldn't oppose it and I support it in essence. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support A tough one. It's probably wrong to compare it to the Venezuelan blackouts, since they lasted much longer and had very serious affects because of the poor state of the country (lack of power=no money, no water; there are no generators, so no hospitals or public services), whereas other South American nations (those affected here) are in better shape, with access to purified water, paper money that has value, and generators to keep necessary services running. That being said, it is unprecedented that three countries suddenly lose all electrical power. 48 million people is slightly more than Spain's and a bit less than the UK - I think if either of those countries (which are well equipped to deal with a blackout) lost all electrical power across the entire country, it would be posted. It shouldn't be judged that people die or can't cope, it's an extraordinary situation. Of course, ITN has only seen two blackouts posted, and in both cases there were worse consequences, if we are going by that standard. Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as this is a major blackout event. --B dash (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready (again) support is overwhelming at this point, drive-by "not ready I didn't oppose yet" !votes don't change that. Disagreeing with consensus isn't the same as no-consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Getting stale fast. – Sca (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the NBA final is rather stale now, but some dead kids in India will push it out of the box soon. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment is absolutely unnecessary and truly disappointing. I've come to expect that type of commentary from some of the ITN regulars (no need to name names), but not from you. You're better than that, or at least I liked to think that you were. If you don't believe that nomination is notable enough, that's fine, but there's no need to excessively emphasize how much you don't care about "some dead kids in India." I'm sorry if this is harsh, but that got under my skin. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had assumed the tone of that comment was one of extreme sarcasm, comparing, as it does, a basketball match with the lives of more than 100 children. I may be wrong, of course, as the MoS still does not advocate Irony punctuation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In this semi-public venue, it's difficult to understand the motivation for abrasively tasteless comments, even when intended as sarcastic humor to underline a point. Inevitably, they engender offense and resentment. – Sca (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume that Laserleg's continued comments (which some find offensive) will be subject to the now-standard WMF unappealable ban of one year on this Wiki only. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not now you've given a reason, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, mea culpa, I meant to remain completely obstinate (as usual). I let my guard down.  I should be following WMF's example, my sincerest apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I am out of the country at the moment, which would make this the standard time to complain about me at WP:AN/I. I suggest closing this, it won't be pulled. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Change it seems that most of the blurbs suggested on the page have the correct link to the 2019 Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay blackout page but the actual link posted on the current events links a power outage to 2019 Argentina and Uruguay blackout instead which is a redirect page so my suggestion is to change the link from the redirect page to the new page name after its title was changed --Bluecrab2 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank LaMere

 * Support Looks to be well-referenced. (I'm not a fan of the referencing style that uses bare URLs, but I don't think there's a rule against it at ITN).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose references are indeed a complete jumbled mess of formats, and we certainly don't use search engine results to verify facts in a BLP, so this is not ready by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the formatting issues, and replaced the search result ref. Do you have any other concerns? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Franco Zeffirelli

 * Oppose WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSECTION. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose (sadly). Massive figure in the film world, and I'd love to see him on the MP, but the article just is not in good enough shape - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose - for now. ping me if or when the article is ready and I can change my mind.BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ning Bin

 * Weak support Would like to see more added about Ning's specific research contributions; article has a single sentence on this (Ning was a pioneer in developing the digitized signalling systems of China's rapid transit networks and made significant contributions to the control systems of China's high-speed railway network and rapid transit networks.) That said, his article is more fleshed out than other members of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and meets minimum standards for RD. Props to Zanhe for expanding the article substantially.  Spencer T• C 02:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Almost all detailed sources about him are in Chinese, and being unfamiliar with the highly specialized technical vocabulary used in sources, I'm only confident with translating a very general summary of his contributions. -Zanhe (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * support - ready enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and despite being clueless, I can see this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 22:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) NBA Finals

 * Oh Canada! game 6 summary needs a ref then good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Game 6 has been sourced since 6:37. Perhaps you were looking at an older cached version?—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be. Looks good now. Marked Ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Non-newsworthy. Too many sports events after NHL finals earlier this week.  Just stop already. 07:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.56.76 (talk)
 * We don't control when events are scheduled. This event is on the recurring events list, meaning that notability is not at issue, and we are only waiting for a quality update to the article.  If you feel this should not be on the recurring events list, you are free to propose its removal. Usually our most common complaint is that not enough things are posted. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Question. Should the blurb note that the Raptors are the first Canadian team to win the Finals? 331dot (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a more standard blurb as an alt (with image to the series MVP).—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb I (as its proposer). The fact that it is Toronto's first is significant to mostly just Canadian basketball fans.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with that, Canadians read Wikipedia, too. Googling "Canada winning NBA finals" brings up many results. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Canadians do not read Wikipedia. Still, perhaps there'd be more interest to say they are first non-American team. But I'm still OK with the vanilla alt blurb I. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * First win is notable no matter what. Could be mentioned for the blues as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment when this goes up, could we leave Pietrangelo in the box for another day or so? If not it's fine, but our turn over is so slow it'd be nice to have the image change to Leonard in a few days. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the anon IP; we've passed on including the NBA Finals in past years so it's not like it's automatically mandatory to include it this time around. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More likely if the article was not ready. ITNR is not an exemption for quality.  Which year are you referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and discount the oppose votes. This is an ITN/R event. It will be posted, once the article update meets the quality standards for ITN. Nominate its removal from ITN/R if you are so inclined. WaltCip (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support opposition votes are meaningless in the case of a well-updated ITNR nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR and the article is in good shape. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ITNR. Good shape article.BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Beyond noting that the finals are an ITN/R event, it is significant to all basketball fans because it is the NBA Finals and because it is the first championship with this international component, and Canada does warrant a footnote in the history of the game. I'd like to recommend the Toronto Star's article as an alternative however as it not an agency article but was written by one of the series' pool reporters. Finally, I would support Pietrangelo hanging around for a bit as it was a notable victory for the Blues as well. ogenstein (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support' Dont need to necessarily mention first Canadian Team as long as its mentioned that its first Raptors win. Given they are only Canadian team atleast for last like 19 years 107.159.2.3 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps alt blurb II could be condensed to "... defeat the Golden State Warriors, becoming the first Canadian team to win the NBA Finals ...". &‐  RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 14:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Don’t forget, this also was a major cultural movement as it bought the whole of Canada together (coast to coast). The last time a Canadian team won in a major sports league in North America was 26 years ago. RehmanK786 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * During which time we've watched our real sports team win nine world championships and three Olympic golds, several handily. North American basketball is technically our game, too, but we gave it to the States before TV even existed. Still way bigger than lacrosse, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted but image has only just been added to get protection. --M asem (t) 15:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And now updated with protected image. --M asem (t) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note for consistency's sake, can an admin either hyperlink basketball in the blurb, or remove the hyperlink from the hockey blurb? -- Plasma Twa  2  17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Question. Is there a reason the Canada aspect was left out?  This aspect is getting coverage in the BBC among other outlets. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Came to comment on this exclusion too. I believe the information about being the first Canadian team to achieve this win is more than just trivia. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Belated support. Congratulations to the Raptors. Can anybody explain to me why two days later the U.S. media only covers Ujiri? Or am I mistaken. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. I support the addition that this is the first Canadian win, indeed the first outside the U.S. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Edith González

 * Oppose for now. Article is too much table, needs more prose that can explain why this person is notable enough.  Merlin  s  orca  14:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the lack of prose means this is close to stub, the lack of references for appearances on film etc is equally troubling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Same-sex marriage now legal in Ecuador

 * Oppose. If it were the first country in Latin America, maybe, but with Colombia, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay already there I can't see anything exceptional enough to justify posting it. &#8209; Iridescent 20:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not even the only one in this week (or previous) to do so. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose just catching up to normal society. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident

 * Oppose: I definitely agree that this is a notable event, and I would support posting it; however, the article is only one paragraph long currently, so probably does not qualify for ITN yet. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Huge improvements to the article in a short space of time. It is an internationally notable event, and I definitely now support it being posted. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Leaning toward oppose, as all crew reportedly safe. Both ships afloat, though one fairly heavily damaged. Cause uncertain; mines suspected. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Opposing for now. If article is expanded then ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the event is receiving heavy coverage and the page has seen a bit of expansion, but not front page material yet. Spengouli (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, - The article has been expanded if you want to take another look. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated that U.S. intelligence believes that Iran is responsible for the attacks on the oil tankers. I'm unsure whether or not this would be deemed an escalation of notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support upon expansion, oppose for the time being. I expect it to have enough content very shortly if anything develops further out of the incident, but if nothing develops then it's probably not as newsworthy anyways. Juxlos (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Article should be expanded enough for now. Juxlos (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Highly notable event, article seems in a better shape than when it was nominated. Wikiemirati (talk)
 * Support and added Alt Blurb II. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 01:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Based on what I've found, this event is receiving LOTS of coverage. I feel like the average person has noticed by now. I think the first altblurb is the best at the moment, but none of them are that bad or good IMO. I'm not sure how I would write it, though. Pie3141527182 (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Well referenced and notable. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is much higher quality now. Also, looking past the apparently low damage and casualties, this event still has big political implications which should be relevant to many readers. Merlin  s  orca  03:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and marked ready. It's in the news, the article is in good shape (slightly anti-Iran POV but that's how RS is playing it). Staggeringly irrelevant in terms of "importance". Please make sure the bold link doesn't point to a disambig page. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Both images of the ship on this article are COPYVIO (now removed as of this comment). They were not taken by Mehr photographers and were screenshots from this video footage --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Amid tensions"? Didn't see that in a proposed blurb, and it suggests Iran is the perpetrator. Best remove that bit and keep it neutral. --LaserLegs (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t suggest any perpetrator, it’s a simple statement of fact that’s in the lead of the article. Stephen 08:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stephen. (And while ystdy I was leaning to oppose, today I can voice PP support as the incident looks more serious.) – Sca (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the increase in tensions is critical to the context of these attacks. However, would've been nice to discuss it first. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Stanley Cup Finals

 * Support nice game summaries. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, nice article, but we should use 2019 Stanley Cup Finals as the bold link. Adding altblurb in our standard phrasing. O'Reilly's article has no photos of him since he moved to St Louis, and it's going to look weird if we picture him in a Buffalo or Colorado shirt. Modest Genius talk 12:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 is still not quite standard. Here are two previous year blurbs for reference. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what ModestGenius was saying, there is no appropriate image of the Conn Smythe winner. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was trying to point out the Stanley Cup does not conclude. It is a physical object, a trophy. The Finals concluded and there too many links in alt1. I am not talking about the original blurb. Suggested alt2. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think alt2 is the best blurb to use. I went too far into football parlance where the name of the trophy is also the name of the championship game with my original blurb. -- Plasma Twa  2  14:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt2 is also fine with me. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ready marked --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this is a can of worms, but it seems that the singular "Final" has finally caught on in the MSM - CBC, CBS, NBC, ESPN, CNN, and the Guardian all use it. NYT is the only major I can find using "Finals."  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Page move for next year? --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Should add that the logo on the bolded article also calls it the Stanley Cup Final. It seems a little dissonant to have the logo not match up with the article title.  Granted it's been the same since 2008 and nothing has been done up to this point. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There was an RFC three years ago that basically said that it should stay plural because everyone called it that. It seems that is no longer the case. I acknowledge this is a very bike shed debate, though.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A reasonable question, but one that can be left to the article talk page. ITN can just reflect the article title. Modest Genius talk 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted alt2. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Moldovan constitutional crisis

 * Support - Might need one or two more refs. But other than that good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose reading the article (vs trolling the edit history) the last update of any significance was June 8th. There is a one sentence update WRT Romania on June 12th. Maybe there are some new people here who haven't read the instructions but "Ongoing" is for articles which are being continuously updated, not for news stories which are ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support We owe it to Moldavan people to show the world their struggle against the evil oligarchic regime 5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhmmmm, actually no, we don't. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there's evidence to suggest both that this is particularly significant, and that the article is being updated regularly to reflect the fact. Moldovan governments are notoriously prone to collapsing—nine parliamentary and eight presidential elections in the 18 years of independence—and I'm not seeing how this is any more significant than any other occasion (we don't feature the current crisis of the leaderless UK government in Ongoing, for instance, despite it being far more in the news and of much more relevance to English-language readers). When the general election is held in September, we'll post the results of that. &#8209; Iridescent 11:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the relevance specifically to English-language readers never was a factor, nor should it be. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose nothing substantive added in the last three days, and not really "in the news". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fails the criteria for Ongoing as it is not being regularly updated in a substantive manner, and is also not especially in the news as TRM states. WP:RGW arguments also don't apply. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll hold off on !voting until I look further into the details, but I would not oppose on quality or on lack of updates. The revision history shows a lot of recent substantial edits by several different editors, and the article is neither poorly referenced nor too short. If the story is notable, it's good to go. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, regretfully. I don't doubt that this story is consequential for Moldova and will have a lasting impact for its government, but the article has more or less been in the same state since my initial comment. I recommend that, iff and when a major development occurs, it's instead posted as a blurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chang Liyi

 * Support another typically good nomination from and despite me being clueless, I support and suggest this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Indian Air Force An-32 crash

 * Comment I know generally there is a higher threshold for casualties in military aircraft crashes, given that military personnel accept higher risks to perform their duties than civilian aircraft passengers do. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:AIRCRASH. We have cricket ongoing, and open noms for a military plane crash, a heat wave and a cyclone. Indian bias? --LaserLegs (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no bias here. It just so happens that numerous significant events have converged upon India this week. Additionally, the nomination for Cyclone Vayu was effectively shut down, and the heat wave has not been agreed upon. Cricket is also not an India-centric nomination. Sadly, it has just been a very unfortunate week for people in India. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple events from the same region should not be a problem for ITN if they are noteworthy enough.-Nizil (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose nothing substantive in the discovery. The disappearance and inevitable complete loss was nearly two weeks ago.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was no article when the aircraft went missing. The event is being covered now for 13 confirmed deaths and wreckage find. It is not that late and 13 deaths are ITNworthy in my opinion.-Nizil (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I get it but this is "IN THE NEWS" and the news item here was the loss, not the discovery. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see what is significant in ITN terms about this crash.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Kivu Ebola epidemic

 * Comment: I think the two commas should be removed from the blurb. They are unnecessary. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support seems like a reasonable development to blurb, and remove from ongoing in the process. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: The spread of a major disease epidemic like Ebola is definitely worth posting (just remove the commas). ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Instead of a blurb, the Ongoing listing should be maintained(there is a proposal to remove it below). 331dot (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article isn't being "continuously updated" in any meaningful way, which is a requirement.... --LaserLegs (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would say at this point that this is still a watch rather than a post as far as ITN goes, which also includes the previous suggestion of "ongoing" status. (Personal opinion: no outbreak of this nature should ever be glossed over; but at the moment this particular outbreak has not (yet) spread beyond what is unhappily fairly common for such outbreaks.) If consensus is to post, I would suggest tightening the blurb to "The World Health Organisation reports that the Ebola epidemic in Kivu, DR Congo, has spread to Uganda." More detailed information is in or linked in the article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If this happened in Europe or the US, it would been the top news for days. -- Viva Nicolás (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's apples and oranges because virulent haemorrhagic viruses are incredibly rare in Europe or the US. But find a monkey and everything will be fine about four minutes later.  See Outbreak for further information.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sylvia Miles

 * Weak oppose, filmography apparently needs updating. Otherwise perfect. Spengouli (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article section is about selected filmography which depict notable films and works that are found in sources. Some actor/actress' bios have selected filmography section. The 2010 film is her final notable appearance per IMDb page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. Was just going by the tag. Support. Spengouli (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Philomena Lynott

 * Support – a well-referenced article which makes a clear case for independent notability. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – fully sourced. (Yes notable, even without 30 studio albums, 9 live albums and 6 Grammys). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Well sourced and updated well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Very nice -- BoothSift Talks  00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreak

 * Support Good nom. We base these decisions by comparing the ongoing article with the oldest blurb. If the most recent significant update to the article is older than the oldest blurb, it should go. This diff shows there has only been incremental increases in the number of cases and deaths as well as minor copy editing. I do not see any thing substantial being added to the article since May 29, the day before Brigitte Bierlein was named chancellor. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – From the latest update to the article: "On 11 June 2019, the WHO reported that the virus had spread to Uganda." --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN says "continuously updated" not "sporadically updated". I'll wait another week, nominate for removal again, someone will drop in a one line update and everyone screams "WTF are you talking about it's still getting updates!". Except for death toll, the article hadn't really been touched in a week. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting timing as I see "New Ebola outbreak in DRC is 'truly frightening', says Wellcome Trust director" on my newsfeed tonight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs to be in the article though TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Vayu

 * Oppose No impact is mentioned in the prose of the article. There needs to be a decent impact section (At least enough to avoid requiring an expand section notice) in order to get the article put up for ITN. Noah Talk 16:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not currently relevant or applicable. I would agree with your comment in 24 hours' time, once Vayu has finished causing impacts, but it has only just begun. There is no information on that at the moment. In accordance with that, the blurb that I proposed refers to the preparations, and does not speak to any potential damages. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the article meets all three of the ITN criteria (namely updated, significance and quality). ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should wait until the impact is known before trying to get ITN. I'm still going to oppose this as you need an impact section since people have been killed. I hate to say it, but your blurb is not the main part of the story. The impact is what is relevant here. Most blurbs stay up for a week so. Noah Talk 17:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I will write the impacts section with the available information now. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe have a blurb more along the lines of "Cyclone Vayu brings tropical storm-force winds and rain to Gujarat, India, killing at least six (possibly add injuries and/or damage estimates)." This is more important than the evacuations. Any additional blurb would have to be identified as an alt blurb. Noah Talk 01:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thankfully the cyclone veered away from the coast, which means the primary story is in the shore erosion, outlying rains, and evacuation only -- and those do happen on an equivalent scale with some regularity, now that the need for large-scale evacuation is more widely recognised. After a predicted falling-apart, the cyclone may possibly redevelop and strike Oman, but that would be a different story and a different nomination. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Disruptive storm, sure, but doesn't reach notability for ITN. Lack of impact works against viability for ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until (if) it makes landfall and something actually happens. Also, LOL, a little context --LaserLegs (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (laugh) I was expecting someone to try to make a comparison there. Thank you for not disappointing. You, I think, recognise that the two are near opposites and that we might well have posted Vayu if it had made landfall the way originally predicted. Thankfully, it never did and is further predicted to weaken. (To say "should have posted" is to crystal-ball a possibility which never happened.) If it strengthens again later and hits Oman, that should be a different nomination, distinct from this one. In the case of the tornado outbreak, it is ironic that part of what does makes it newsworthy is precisely that so few people were killed, especially with rain-wrapped / nighttime EF4s, usually a worst-case situation because no one can see them coming (see the Washington Post article on the subject). Unfortunately, many people do not recognise the absence of a common outcome as being significant in itself. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well... 6+ people have died, so that is something. Not enough for ITN IMO though. The track model indicates a landfall could occur on June 18, but it would be so weak that the winds wouldn't do much if any damage. In fact, the winds that are affecting the coastal areas now are much stronger than what the predicted landfall strength is. Basically, this looks like a now or never kind of situation. Noah Talk 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Indian heat wave

 * Oppose at this point. We're into the summer months so its going to get hot, plus the known effects of global warming making it worse. This unfortunately is going to become more common around the globe, so to highlight one wave isn't really ITN's perview. --M asem (t) 15:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if the regularity or the expectedness of an event should affect consideration. Things like sporting events and elections also happen with regularity, and they tend to be included in ITN (rightfully so) because they're significant. Besides, a severe heat wave that causes multiple deaths is not the same as mere hot summer weather, so it should not be treated as such. Merlin  s  orca  16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Your point is well-taken but we don't post that sporting events happen, per se. We post that a particular side wins them, and THAT is not expected (though with that in mind, maybe we can stop posting the Bundesliga).   GreatCaesarsGhost   16:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We do seem to post sporting events in progress, though: the main page currently has 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup as an ongoing event and it doesn't seem to have a winner yet. FIFA is definitely a huge event and only happens every 4 years (so it is rightfully included), but it does also occur regularly and expectedly. So regularity and expectedness shouldn't affect consideration of this heat wave; rather we should discuss whether or not it is significant enough. Merlin  s  orca  16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * India reached 51c for only the second time, tying its record high, also they are close to turning off the running water. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for something that is supposed to have been happening since June 2nd, the article is short and shows no signs of being "continuously updated". A little context: July_2018#(Closed)_North_American_Heat_Wave, July_2018#(Closed)_Ongoing:_2018_Eastern_Canada_heat_wave, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2018_Eastern_Canada_heat_wave. The Japan heat wave was posted as a blurb instead of being referred to AFD. Interestingly, none of these relevant and related items has anything at all to do with soccer. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The context is helpful; it seems the heat waves you linked were rejected from being added as "ongoing" items, but the Japan one was accepted and posted as a blurb. Would you oppose this article being posted as a blurb, too? Also, how does the article show "no signs" of being continuously updated? Checking the revision history, you can see there were 7 edits today and 11 edits yesterday, which added significant updates. Merlin  s  orca  01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want it for a blurb, nominate it for a blurb. Re: updates, sure, some changes made daily, but I have no idea what happened on June 7th, for example, in the grip of a heatwave, and I don't care about some dead monkeys. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you bring up June 7th specifically? Does every single day of an ongoing event need to be documented? Take a look at a current ongoing event, The Kivu Ebola outbreak. I can pick any arbitrary date like 7 February, for example, and not find any information in the article about it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an ongoing event, though. The 15 dead monkeys are only a small part, there are also dozens of dead humans, and humans fighting over water shortages. 4 more people died on a train due to heat on June 10. Merlin  s  orca  05:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, that article is stale and doesn't belong in the box. Nominated for removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like it's not constantly updated anymore, so that makes sense. But can you explain how that reasoning applies to this article when there have been significant updates in the last few days? Merlin  s  orca  13:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support 36 deaths is absolutely notable, and is worthy of being posted. As noted previously, people do not usually die just because of typical summer weather, and 50.8 °C is far from normal weather—it is literally more than halfway to boiling from 0. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the interest of strict accuracy, it is true that 50°C is technically halfway to boiling from the freezing point (0°C); but that should not be confused with 100°C being twice as hot as 50°C. (See Kelvin scale) I know you did not make that mistake, but the mathematical relationship between 2x and 1/2 could lead to confusion. All that being said, I am glad someone other than me nominated this article. Support posted below. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of the distinction between Celsius and Kelvin, which was why I was specific in saying 'between 0 and boiling' (just as a coincidence, I have been studying some introductory thermodynamics at university in the past few weeks, and we discussed this very topic). But I definitely appreciate your academic thoroughness! ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice to meet a fellow physicist! - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on incorporating Vayu into the heat wave blurb? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you were not addressing me, but mention of Vayu does belong there, as for that matter does a more detailed look at the late monsoon. I will look at it as soon as I finish processing the flood information for the tornado outbreak. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it might be possible to propose a single blurb regarding all the Indian disasters this week, as none seem to be notable enough in their own right for everyone to support their individual posting. There has been an extremely severe heat wave, a cyclone, and a military plane crash. All of these caused fatalities, and they add up to more than 50 in total. We could say something like, "More than 50 people are killed in several disasters in India, including a severe heat wave, Cyclone Vayu, and a military aircraft crash." What do you think? ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support for blurb. You may want to add that 48°C is a New_Delhi record. (The information in the linked article is already outdated -- the previous record of 47.8°C was set in 2014, and the referenced statistics only go up to 2010.) Responding to an earlier comment, ignoring the extremes of events because such events in general happen "with regularity" or "are going to get more common" is essentially to dismiss every piece of news that is not a one-off -- and thus inherently to set a pre-existing argument against pretty much all weather-related events which do not have extreme death tolls, regardless of how far they fall outside standard deviations in their raw statistics. On a related note, the limits of human survival are somewhere between 52 and 58°C, depending on relative humidity. The hottest temperature ever recorded on conventional earth (ie. outside volcanoes) was either 54.0°C or 56.7°C, but neither of those places is long-term inhabited, let alone by millions of people. Extreme heat records in inhabited areas are starting to encroach on those limits. This heat wave reached 50.8°C in the city of Churu, which is 0.2°C off India's all-time record; and it is only because it is a dry heat (pre-monsoon) that more people have not died. In this kind of heat, air conditioners don't help. Even if they or the electrical grid don't fail, they only make the surrounding air that much hotter. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 56.7C is bullshit. One of the world's top if not the top expert on temperature records has said it's probably at least 4-5F too high. He considers 54.0C to be the world record. This has occurred once each at 2 weather stations in the Arabian Desert and (once?) at Furnace Creek a weather station in Death Valley in California. I doubt the creek had a droplet in it at the time. The 56.7 record is believed to be caused by the weather station guy wanting to get back in the shade so much that he read one bold line too high on the thermometer or paper graph so it was really 129F (=53.9C) instead of 134. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The heat wave will most probably continue due to a delayed monsoon. A minimum of 36 people have died which itself makes it quite significant. Cities are reaching all-time high temperatures and people are dying in trains due to heat (never heard of before). Pratyush (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we change this to a blurb nomination? eg. "Temperatures exceeding 50°C kill 36 people during a pre-monsoon heat wave in northern and central India." - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I also think a blurb would make more sense now. More suggestions for blurbs:
 * 1) In one of India's longest-lasting heat waves, record-breaking temperatures are reached, and at least 36 people are killed.
 * 2) Temperatures of 50.8 C are reached and at least 36 are killed in a severe heat wave affecting India.
 * But I would suggest we Wait for more news today and tomorrow. If the heat wave doesn't end, it will become India's single all-time longest heat wave, and no longer only "one of" the longest. Merlin  s  orca  14:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support a blurb for this over ongoing. The article is kind of "iffy", supporters could add an infobox with stuff like death toll, highest temp, number of days, etc to summarize the scattershot prose, then IMO it's GTG for a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Girish Karnad

 * Comment - That is one challenging article for getting references and sources. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A lot of work needed. Ping me when done.BabbaQ (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article needs quite a bit more of research and journals, lest having an article being built off of preliminary knowledge. DoctorSpeed <b style="color:red">Want to talk?</b> —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bushwick Bill

 * Comment There were mistaken stories yesterday that he had died but he had only been hospitalized. There's now enough clarity to confirm his death now. --M asem (t) 20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose discography needs referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Discography isn't complete either, as it only includes his solo work, not work with the Geto Boys, which he was most famous for. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's BAU to list collaborative work on the individual's page. Mick Jagger, Gwen Stefani, & Beyoncé omit group albums.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Fine now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong protests

 * Support - Article is sufficient. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support - for all the reasons given above (blurb, comment by BabbQ, etc). I would also to this the obvious geopolitical dimension of the event. This is a no-brainer Syopsis (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on both notability and on quality. Looks good to go. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is a highly notable event of significant political importance. I would propose a change to the blurb, to say "extradition to mainland China" rather than just "extradition". ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, the amendment applies to any place outside Hong Kong. But yes the main concern is China.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment did we post the "supposedly one million people marching against Brexit"? Why is this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was it nominated? To answer your question, it is different because it is a rare event in China/Hong Kong. Americans/Europeans protest several times a year. AFAIK, this is the first such event in Hong Kong since 2014. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm asking. And no, Brits don't protest in their hundreds of thousands several times a year thanks.  Maybe once every few years. So I ask again, what's different?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was it nominated? --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Brexit was still posted to ongoing at the time. The protests were not nominated, but were mentioned in a contemporaneous nom to removed Brexit from ongoing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad I am consistent. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with you and/or any consistency you may claim. It's about the fact that we've posted something that is directly equivalent to the rare Brexit protests in the UK, which wasn't posted.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The next time such a protest occurs in Britain, I encourage to nominate it. You will have my support. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your rationale about Brexit doesn't get a look-in in my book for the following reasons: #1: it's not only the absolute size but the relative size, viz: Population of the United Kingdom: 69 million; Population of the Hong Kong: 7.3 million. #2: HK one rare example of a territory with a liberal culture existing within a totalitarian state and whose way of life is enshrined in an international treaty but whose government is hell-bent on succumbing to the whims of the regime to the detriment of its people, for which they are mounting this rearguard last-stand protest. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 19:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting headline change request - You cannot lead with "1 million" people" as the objective number of participants as that is one boasted by the organizers who always greatly inflate the numbers. Similarly, the police number of 240,000 is always too low. The headline should therefore be changed to "hundreds of thousands march in the largest protests since 1997." The current one fails WP:RS and WP:V. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose using obviously inflated numbers from unreliable sources. Honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb has been fixed. The current blurb is consistent with the lowest estimate. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've changed the text regarding numbers, per . I'll leave it to others to decide if it should be pulled altogether. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – There is a now better target article at 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests. It looks like it is well referenced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Fascinating story, which has been getting significant coverage; the article is good. Davey2116 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Post-posting headline change request, User:Lmmnhn and User:Ohconfucius can any one of you please change it to  Protesters gather in Hong Kong to rally against a proposed amendment regarding extradition in what is the city's largest demonstration since the handover/Article 23 protest? The way it's written now gives credence to those who underestimate the size of the crowd (organizers had it at over a million). My headline proposal would just sidestep the measurement issue completely and go directly to why it's important by connecting it up to past events. Syopsis (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is generally better to go by third-party witnesses than organizers for these events on crowd size. It is not that possibly a million+ protested, but we need to stay with reliable conservative numbers. --M asem (t) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are only two estimates, from the government and the organizers. There is good reason to distrust both. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , only admins can change the blurb now. Do you have a reliable source that states that even the government's low estimate (240k-270k) is still larger than any protest since the 1997 Handover of Hong Kong? If so I have no objection. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with "hundreds of thousands" – it could potentially cover nine hundred thousand . Fact is, there are no reliable attendance figures. What we want is a figure arrived at by proper scientific means, with all assumptions and bases transparently disclosed with the potential for them to be audited, but they don't exist. Organisers' figures might be inflated, but he police figures are risible. Either way, the protest was massive by any standards. The only concern I have, as I already mentioned on the article's talk page, is that there may be close paraphrasing in the article, the extent of which I have not yet verified. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ohconfucius the way i read it the headline the wording still isn't giving a proper context. I am sure you will be well aware that this march didn't happen in a vaccum - that is why i said earlier to connect it up to past events. From what i understand, the numbers easily outstrip the number of protesters who came out for the Article 23 protest. Perhaps we can agree on changing it to Protesters gather in Hong Kong to rally against a proposed amendment regarding extradition in what is the city's largest demonstration since the Article 23 protest? or is that too specific? Syopsis (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need to connect the protests up to past events. They standalone as significant numbers.  Stephen 02:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * On news today that the gov't has suspended pursuing the legislation, I have altered the blurb slightly to reflect this change but keeping the protests as the focus article. --M asem (t) 18:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 French Open

 * Support one of the four "major" tournaments per year in professional tennis and the article is up to par for what is expected of its type. Abajurrujaba (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose target article is simply a bunch of tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support As mentioned, Roland Garros is a grand slam, and hence is one of the four biggest and most prestigious tennis tournaments in the world. Tennis is also a sport of international appeal. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – We have consistently rejected nominations such as this with only charts and lists. The "importance" is pre-established as ITNR. But the nomination still needs to meet the article quality standards with addition of prose especially of the finals.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as in previous nominations of this kind, prose is overrated. What matters in this kind of article are 1) who won and 2) what the score was, and tables are good enough for that. Banedon (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. It is house style now to expect prose covering at least the final matches in the target articles.  This is routinely applied to all sports, including the Superbowl, the Boat Races etc.  This is not exceptional and should not be given a free pass.  The article currently barely gives more information about the final than the blurb, and that is wholly unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "article" is an impenetrable thicket of tables, flags, headings and blue-links. That's perfectly understandable: most wikipedia editors are illiterate and it's probably better that they don't try to write prose. But we can't feature the resulting mess on the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you have any evidence to support that the majority of editors are illiterate? Leaky caldron (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * According to WaPo, Approximately 32 million adults in the United States can't read, according to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 50 percent of U.S. adults can't read a book written at an eighth-grade level. So given most of our readers are from the US, while "most" is a stretch, "almost half" wouldn't be far off. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * a) editors≠readers; writing is more difficult than reading, so the rate would necessarily be lower b) The U.S. makes up just 40% of our readers, as everyone is fond of bringing up whenever the CFP is nominated, c) while standards vary from place to place, an eighth-grade level is no one's cutoff for being "illiterate."  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just yanking ya crank y'all! Come on now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Coffeeandcrumbs SD0001 (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose All encyclopedia articles have prose.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Goodness me, if I bought a paper encyclopedia from WH Smith and found it had an article looking like that I would probably return it to the shop. Far too many tables, far too little prose. It's a great shame, because this is indeed one of the major tournaments of the year and for someone to win it for a twelfth time is quite something. But there we go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the article is lacking in sufficient prose to justify posting at present. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Cricket World Cup

 * Oppose the posting of sports events to ongoing (bar the Olympics) <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> — Ruyter (talk • edits)  07:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. I oppose posting single-sport events in progress to Ongoing in general, but this especially, as it does not have the worldwide and large appeal of soccer/football. The result of the tournament is ITNR and it will get posted then(assuming the article is OK). 331dot (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:STRONG.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, but I stand by my expression of opposition. I think this is not a good slippery slope to go down. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm also not a big fan of these nominations, but since we just posted the Women's World Cup, it would be bizarrely illogical not to post this, which has bigger appeal - don't forget, the countries taking part - from 4 continents - have a total population of around 2 billion, in much of which cricket is the national sport. The article has had 1.2 million pageviews in the last ten days. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a worldwide interest sport. Period. Final and winner might be posted though.BabbaQ (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A very odd comment. Cricket is the 2nd most watched sport in the world after football. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be true relative to the population of the Earth, but the bulk of fans are in India. Nation by nation would be different. And where does it end? 3rd most watched? 5th? 331dot (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support There are 112 countries in the world which have membership in the ICC, and thus are professional-grade cricket-playing countries. It is simply false to suggest that cricket is not a worldwide-interest sport. I should also point out that saying 'strong support' or 'strong oppose' is completely redundant. The strength of one's position is established by the strength of one's argument, and it is irrelevant how strongly the proponent agrees with their own opinion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it's time to move on from this "it's not what Ongoing was intended for" argument. Things have evolved, and consensus has clearly changed.  As noted above, cricket is about as far from a niche sport as possible, played in countries with a total population in the billions.  The interest from our readers is absolutely undeniable, and this is who we're here to serve, the readers, not our own opinion on whether cricket has worldwide appeal (for the avoidance of doubt, it absolutely does). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Yes, the ICC has 100+ "members" but only 12 of them are full members. The rest are associate members, a vast majority of which never qualify and have little to no chance of qualifying. None qualified in this one. The controversial choke-hold one particular nation with over a billion citizens has on the ICC ensures that this sport has significantly lower prominence that football. The blurb of the final is justified but ongoing is overkill. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Its silly to list the FIFA Women's World Cup, but not the Cricket World Cup. Cricket is an important sport in the Commonwealth countries. SD0001 (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OSE. Doing one thing does not automatically mean we must do the other. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the essay yourself and understand in what situations it is to be invoked. The second sentence itself says: These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. What's more, it goes on to say When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The fact that FIFA women's world cup is listed right now even though the cricket world cup is taking place at the same time and that's not listed is wrong, as the latter has a greater appeal. SD0001 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the wrong is that the Women's world cup is listed at ongoing. It's only there to avoid perpetuating the bias against the women's game vs the men's which is (a) explicitly not Wikipedia's job, and (b) only necessary because we posted the men's event, contrary to the purpose of the section, simply because it was getting a lot of coverage. Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually no, once again it's wrong in your personal opinion. It's getting around 100k hits a day which demonstrates how readers are looking for it and are interested in it.  The fact that it also addresses a tiny bit of the gender bias in this boy's club is a huge bonus. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Makes no sense to have women’s football but not the cricket. As noted above cricket does have worldwide appeal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the Olympics is a multi-day multi-sport event with a high level of global participation and appeal. The FIFA World cup is a multi-day single sport event with limited global participation or appeal but with a relentless media circus. Cricket is neither of those things. The results are ITN/R and that's plenty good enough. I don't know or care about the women's world cup, didn't !vote and am not interested in a comparison. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support hugely popular sport and article looks pretty OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per Coffee, Laser. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment should this go up, there are some missing refs that need fixing. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment should this go up, the requirement for a continuously updated Wikipedia article stands so if it's not getting updated, any party should feel free to nominate a pull. Same goes for Women's WC. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is going to be a problem for WC. The Aussie/Italy game was updated seconds after they scored. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting - that's something that is prohibited in Six Nations Rugby Union matches and, I think, all FIFA Word Cup finals matches - you have to wait for the final result before adding the score. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the game also ended seconds after they scored. I was saying people are interested enough that they are champing at the bits to add updates. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Many thanks for clarifying. Yes, that's exactly how updates should be. And I agree with your point there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This sport does not have a global following.  Sandstein   13:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Global following" is not required for item to be posted and this line of argument has been preempted already. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However, that is exactly the reason why the Olympics and FIFA WC are added to ongoing. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We just posted the the WWC in the interest of gender equality, not on its own merits. I'm okay with that, but we cannot turn around and say this men's event is more important than that women's event, because importance was not the reason we posted WWC. If we post this, must we then post the next women's version? And then any men's event more important than that?  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair argument, but the trouble here is that this more important is taking place at the same time. SD0001 (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely a catch-22 in this discussion; there is no satisfactory place to draw the line. My feeling is that we should not have posted the women, because the men is essentially an IAR post - it's massively bigger than anything else. But I also understand that the gender equality argument is grounded in the idea that society (incl WP) is constantly reinforcing the supremacy of men's sports. As much as we are not here to RGW, we are also not here to reinforce them. So I get it. But then to take it a step further and post this BECAUSE we posted the women is a logical leap I will not sustain.   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for Ongoing. Cricket simply doesn't have the world-wide permenance as the football/soccer does to be ongoing. Results I believe are an ITNR though and that's fine. --M asem (t) 16:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You've just ruled out any nomination for American football or baseball. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For ongoing coverage. Final result is still fine for ITNR. --M asem (t) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support: "but the bulk of fans are in India": Not true: Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, South Africa, New Zealand, England, the West Indies, Zimbabwe, Ireland and Pakistan are not India! This is the most relevant and watched mayor sports event these days! 80.153.196.239 (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's odd that we post navel-gazing such as the Oxford Cambridge boat race but argue over something like this with a truly global following. 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:7C7A:1B6D:32B:F0C1 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, now. The Boat Race is exempt from notability standards due to an RFC handed down from King Eadwulf to the Earl of Duffingshire a millennium before your insignificant country was even discovered by her majesty's most honourable and glorious so-and-sos. Let us not speak again of such rubbish.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not navel gazing, it's just following orders. (If you can see anyone’s belly button they’re probably doing it wrong). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, you know I can't remember the last time posted the Boat Race as ongoing. I know my updates are absolutely remarkable, but I don't think even I could argue for a 20-minute ongoing article.  But NICE TRY!  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they'd be 20 of Wikipedia's finest minutes. ....unless it's  a bit windy of course.  Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I'll nominate it on 29 March 2020 and see how we go! I love naval gazing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're onto a real winner there./ Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * !!!!!!ROWING KLAXON!!!!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious you mean !!!!! CANOE KLAXON !!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM and BK. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not enough global interest for ongoing. The last men's FIFA World Cup got five times as many daily page views. The women were posted for equality, not for global interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding any and all single-winner sports events to ongoing per the entire purpose of ongoing. The individual matches would rightly not even be considered for blurbs so there is no reason at all to post this to ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the "individual matches would rightly not even be considered for blurbs so there is no reason at all to post this to ongoing" "logic" at all. Individual matches in the Olympics or at the World Cup aren't ever considered for blurbs, yet both have been posted for Ongoing.  Perhaps you could explain your position so at least I can try to understand what you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can think of several individual event finals in the Olympics that would warrant a blurb on their own. IMO, every match from the quarter-finals and on in FIFA WC receive enough attention to warrant their own blurbs. It is before my time, but I believe that was the original justification for adding them to ongoing. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, nonsense.  We have some kind of special allowance for ice hockey  in the Olympics (per ITNR) but no individual matches other than the final in the World Cup have ever been nominated.  This is becoming a bit silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the Mens ice hockey gold medal winner ITN/R entry was removed. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I forgot that had happened. Well jolly good. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Individual gold medals at the Olympics would be considered for blurbs if they happened outside that overarching event (they wouldn't necessarily get one, but they wouldn't be rejected out of hand) - it's because they would overwhelm ITN that the Olympics gets put in ongoing. You are right that individual matches at the football world cup (men's or women's) wouldn't get blurbs either, which is why it should not be listed at Ongoing either. If we are including single winner contests that rumble on in the news for weeks in Ongoing then it should also currently have an entry for 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, along with US presidential primaries, general election campaigns in many countries, sports leagues and competitions where the results are on ITN/R (and possibly others), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, your examples are silly.  They are local issues.  The Cricket World Cup (clue in the title) is global.  So  by all means have another think.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Global versus local is not at all relevant to my objection (as it is not relevant to whether something is posted at ITN or not). My objection is to any and all single-winner sports contests (probably other single-winner contests too, but there may be exceptions I haven't thought of) being posted to ongoing because they are single-winner contests where the individual elements are not blurb worthy (whether they are global or local). We do not post the ins and outs of any other type of story, as a blurb or ongoing, we wait until the final result and post that as a blurb (subject to article quality, whether they are global or local). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I wouldn't post any of these to ongoing, but if we're going to post the Women's World Cup, why are we not posting something that has a larger global audience? Makes no sense to me at all. Either post both, or post neither. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you;'re wrong, we do post single-winner events to ongoing, so I'm afraid the rest of your objection is somewhat moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because we made a mistake posting other events does not mean that we must repeat the mistake by posting more events that are inappropriate. I opposed the posting of the women's world cup on these same grounds (and I think I did for the men's but haven't checked), and will oppose any other single winner sports events that are proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, your position is beyond doubt, but that doesn't equate to us making a "mistake" I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was not a mistake to post these events at ongoing you would be able to easily refute the arguments made by me and others about why these events do not belong on ongoing. You have not done so, you've merely stated that because we posted the men's football world cup we must therefore post the women's, and that because we posted the women's football world cup we must therefore post the men's cricket world cup. No doubt then you will argue that because we posted this then we must post the women's, and that because we posted the football and cricket wc's we must post the athletics equivalent, and so on. It is not too late to say that stepping on this slippery slope was a mistake and that we are choosing to step off it. ITN is not a news or sports ticker, and I for one am keen to ensure that we do not become one - and that includes by not posting single-winner competitions to ongoing. Ongoing is to prevent a succession of blurbs about the same topic from overwhelming ITN - there is only one blurbable point for a single-winner competition: the result of the final. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't really made any arguments per se, just offered your personal opinion on the function of Ongoing. I see it is as drawing the attention of our readers to events that they may be looking for, and where they will find high quality information about events that are ongoing.  You don't agree with that, that's your personal take on it, and therefore it's not a "mistake" that has been made, just something with which you personally take umbrage. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean I haven't made any arguments that agree with your view about what we should or should post. We are already seeing the posting of the women's world cup used as arguments that any event that is ongoing belongs in the ongoing section - if we want something other than that then we need to have some sort of standards. That standard has always been that we don't post things that would not be blurbed - and nothing other than the final of a single-winner sports competition would get a blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The bulk of fans are in India because India has 1/7th of all humans on this planet. I did not say that the sport is not popular in other countries, but those countries have much smaller populations. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pakistan and Bangladesh has both enough people to be relevant. Cricket is one of the most popular sports in English speaking countries and the Commonswealth. The Tournament is now, for the fith time in England. Also one of the mayor sports events in England in this decade of sports. This is the English language Wikipedia, I guess?! You can't ignore the support of 1/7 people on this planet for cricket. Just because it's India, it doesn't make it not relevant for the English language Wikipedia. India can't be used as an argument against cricket. The place is not limited, is it? 87.140.111.165 (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - essentially there's a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:WORLDWIDE issue going on here. Many people are opposing because they personally don't find the CWC very momentous, but for India and other countries in the subcontinent, (which are all English-speaking countries and part of our community, lest we forget) this is *the* major sport and tournament of the quadrennial calendar. (For comparison - see India's performance in the FIFA World Cup... the world's second-most-populous country was seeded 35th in Asia and then bowed out bottom of the group in qualifiers, below Guam. Football just isn't their sport.) For me it looks like this may not have the legs or consensus to be posted, but I think there's a good case for WP:IAR and with the systemic bias issues factored in, this IMHO has a similar claim to the Women's World Cup for inclusion. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't give a shit about the tedious "other stuff exists"/"other stuff doesn't exist"/"other stuff shouldn't exist"/"other stuff exists but this isn't like that" rubbish. The key point for me is that there are barely ten countries in the world that take cricket seriously. The event itself isn't so significant as to warrant main-page prominence for its lengthy duration. The result of the final, assuming it isn't permanently rained-out, suffices. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. More than ten countries take cricket seriously.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you could divide the West Indies up into multiple countries, so fair point. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for undermining your own position, saved me from doing it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How many countries take baseball "seriously"? Or is that question an "OSE prohibited question"? Or does it depend on the population in those countries? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you bothering me with an irrelevant question about baseball? --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I think your point is a ridiculously inane simplification of what makes news? Very sorry to bother you, but other editors are welcome to respond.Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How many baseball stories are being proposed for "Ongoing"? Zero? That's what I thought, so irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Granted. But do we think "how many countries take a sport seriously" is a useful metric with which to judge posting anything? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, not especially. I think useful metrics are article quality and is the item "in the news". This event will make a great blurb at it's conclusion. This whole nom is very WP:POINTy, the WWC is in the box so ZOMG cricket. --LaserLegs (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The answer: four: US, Canada, Cuba, Japan. No-one else gives even one shit, let alone two, about baseball.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Its watched by roughly 2 billion people, happens once every 4 years, i understand the other stuff exist argument but seems like it gets invoked heavily in items that are non-western. Or other stuff doesn't exist got brought up right above via baseball which is essentially counter argument again with western interests. Meanwhile arguing that there is only 10 countries in it makes no sense. There were qualifications held and many did not qualify. if Fifa WC lowered the number of teams in their world cup post qualification then would we not post it? Also the number of countries vs the total number of viewers argument is also weird as that gives like Vatican equal weighing as India. If you get politically segregated into a country you cease to be seen as important statistics or suddenly become way more important lol. 107.159.12.144 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please source the claim "watched by roughly 2 billion people". 331dot (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This article cites 2.2 billion people for the 2015 CWC (ref 26), with the India-Pakistan match having more than 1 billion viewers alone.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is not posted. I would Strongly Support a pull of Fifa's women's world cup ongoing as it is an incredibly biased precedence to only put items where U.S might win something, i would rather have us set precedence of not putting sports tournament than what is going on right now. From perspective of a person who does not live in US but comes here often i can tell you it really feels like this isnt english wikipedia but rather American wikipedia where a few random non-american stories get approved as charity. There are enough english speaking nations that are involved in Cricket world cup that are simply being ignored because of a few who think its not of global interest which is absolutely wrong. 155.64.138.104 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, was the 2018 Men's World Cup not posted? I'm pretty sure the US didn't even qualify...-- BoothSift Talks  00:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WTF are you two talking about? Yes, of course the 2018 mens FIFA WC was posted in ongoing, and as a blurb, and the host city, and what, in the name of whatever God, does the "US" have to do with anything here? You people have America Derangement Syndrome or some damned thing. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The choice of wording maybe poor but the point was if its in American interest then the opposition is limited and usually will get posted. Textbook systemic bias to have WWC up there where US happens to be top team vs CCW where US is not playing even though way more popular. Comparison to Fifa mens world cup would be moot point as that is even more popular and definitely should be posted whether US is in it or not. It is not America Derangement Syndrome, denying the existence of systemic bias and constantly opposing other worldwide events might be some other Derangement Syndrome though. I do not wish to insult your comment so i will stop here. 155.64.138.104 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Textbook systemic bias" is posting the mens WC but not the womens: regardless of what country is favored to win. The box almost exclusively features male sports (some tennis excepted) and within a day of posting the WWC people come out of the woodwork "OMFG the WWC lets post some cricket". You honestly think the only reason the WWC is in ongoing is because of "American bias"? Did you even read the nom? Probably not, it might contradict your America Derangement Syndrome. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Question is the wall of text long enough that we can close this? The item is ITN/R and will be posted at the conclusion. If the wall of text is not yet high enough, that's fine I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is consensus to close it yet. Large number of opposes seem to be "dont use the other stuff exists", while the Fifa womens world cup isnt something that was posted previously and can not be reversed. Its up right now!!!! So yes other stuff exists really does matter in this case. Im sure someone can/will just close it and form a forced decision pretending to find consensus in above arguments. But it will not be right. 155.64.138.104 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is consensus for anything here. The arguments mainly are "we posted the women's world cup so we should post this", "football is a more popular sport than cricket" (several definitions used), "we shouldn't post this for the same reasons we shouldn't have posted the women's world cup" and "this is getting more coverage than the women's world cup". I know which arguments I think are stronger, but trying to be as objective as I can I don't think this is heading towards a consensus for or against. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've seen noms for articles from some countries closed in hours on the grounds that "consensus will not develop". Seems like this one is toast, but if y'all want to keep debating it, I don't think I care. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this is cricket. Games can last for days. Let's keep it going till Thursday at least. Close it, it's a ridiculous decision but it wouldn't be the first time at ITN/C would it? Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Per Amakuru. There is no basis to post wayyy less popular sports events but they are anyway. No reason for the equal representation type of logic that is applied to those ITNCs to not apply here. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 15:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per other supports. If FIFA gets outgoing, then why not cricket? -- BoothSift Talks  00:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. A major sport with popular following across a large fraction of the world population. I'm not sure I would have supported in previous years, but if we're putting the FIFA Women's World Cup in ongoing then this should go there too. The CWC easily exceeds the WWC in popular and media attention. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also sympathetic to the idea of limiting ongoing sporting entries to just the Olympics and Winter Olympics, as they produce champions in each sport over an extended period. If we go down that route, we'd need to pull the WWC. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or leave it, and not post it in 2023. Interesting we keep hearing about "a large fraction" of the worlds population, I wasn't aware that China, the United States or Indonesia gave a shit about cricket. Is it, then, that one very populated country cares a good deal? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Cricket doesn't produce champions at the Olympics. At least, not for 119 years. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Huge audience worldwide. Supporting even though I hate one-day cricket. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * comment i am not at all fan of watching cricket (i love to play it though). But for the editors who are basing their oppose on "no worldwide following": even football/soccer doesnt have worldwide following. — <span class="monospaced" style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  01:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All y'all know that the conclusion of this event is ITN/R right? That the winner gets a blurb and even a picture? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The qualifying process for cricket's world cup is pretty straightforward, unlike less global sports of basketball and rugby. 8 teams automatically qualified without playing a qualifying game; 2 other berths are contested via the 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier, of which there were 8 participants, of which two came from the 2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Two (of six teams that participated there), four came from 2015–17 ICC World Cricket League Championship (out of 8 participants). This meant that a grand total of 14 teams bothered with qualifying, plus the 8 teams already qualified, for a total of 22 countries who cared to participate. Remarkably, 0 teams south of the equator and between the international date line and prime meridian participated in this global event. (For comparison, 2019 Rugby World Cup qualifying had 93 teams participate in qualifying, and 80 (excluding prequalifiers) in 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup qualification, both obviously not global sports as cricket.) Howard the Duck (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point as it has now been posted, but the statement of "This meant that a grand total of 14 teams bothered with qualifying" is incorrect, as the qualification process includes all of the divisions in the 2012–18 ICC World Cricket League, with nearly 40 teams in that process alone.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh good, it included up to eight divisions of almost 40 countries, that 30 of these had no chance at all of qualifying. Six years of qualifying for a world cup, and all they can show for is still less than the entries for the African qualifiers of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Global game indeed! Howard the Duck (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And all 105 countries that are members of the List of International Cricket Council members can actually qualify. It's just that to get into Division 8, the bottom level of those 40, you have to be good enough in your region. The system is designed to stop mis-matches because in cricket a mismatch is not only unappealing to watch and a waste of time, but fantastically dangerous. The idea of some kid from Vanuatu facing the one of the world's fastest bowlers is terrifying - remember that unlike baseball, bowling aimed at the neck/head is permitted and commonplace. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well versed in seeing world cup qualifying formats to have the weakest teams play each other (fantastically enough, UEFA doesn't do this). We don't wanna see some random basketball dude from Gibraltar get ran over by Anthony Davis never to walk again. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Rodham

 * Support But apparently his full date of birth needs sourcing. It appears all sources (Even NYT orbit) just mention he was born in "1954" sans the specific date and month. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis, the DoB issue above seems to have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Justin Edinburgh

 * Support very sad news, good article, well updated. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is good enough although slightly proseliney in places. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've noticed a disproportionate number of soccer players/personnel in recent deaths over time. However, if it turns out to be a sampling artifact on my part the article is adequate enough. Also, in any case RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the note in the template. RDs are based on article quality only. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Nicky Barnes

 * Oppose Too much unreferenced material there. I also wonder that if he died in 2012, does it really count as a recent death? - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 100% per SchroCat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If the death was truly not retorted until now then it is eligible for RD if the article is of sufficient quality (I've not looked). Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 19:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree that the death being in 2012 violates the spirit if not letter of RD. Regardless the article isn't quite up to standard. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if the article is up to quality, even if the death was only reported today. The heading on the mainpage says "Recent deaths," not "Deaths reported today." It would be a great disservice to point our readers to the article and then told them he died almost a decade ago. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the criteria, per WP:ITN is "For purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources." Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not be too literal, folks. The section is "in the news" and his death is noted in the paper of record. RD was a practical solution to too many obituary blurbs - the term "recent" was never intended to be exclusionary.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding a small parenthetical "(in 2012)" would solve all problems and would hook readers in to read the article. That is our goal in the end. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup

 * Comment. Posting the result of this tournament is ITNR, but not the occurrence of the tournament itself.  Ongoing was never meant for single-sport events in progress; multi-sport events such as the Olympics are(I think we have posted the Commonwealth Games, too).  I realize we have posted the men's tournament as Ongoing, but I have consistently opposed doing so(and continue to), though it is posted because it is arguably the #1 followed worldwide single-sport event.  I'm not sure that's true for the women's tournament(rightly or wrongly). 331dot (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with men's world cup and the Olympics. Not even the Commonwealth games. --Tone 15:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the precedent of posting the men's World Cup at ongoing means that Wikipedia will, once again, look completely out of touch if it doesn't post this. This of course assumes the quality of the article to be sufficient and that updates will be made regularly and comprehensively.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. This is getting significant coverage, and we have precedent with the men's World Cup. Davey2116 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM and Davey2116. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If the men got it why not the women? Also, it's a 100% chance the article will be constantly updated until the tournament's last mactch.--SirEdimon (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Men's and women's competitions in an event, rightly or wrongly, do not always have equal notability and one should not be posted just because the other is as we are not here to right great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing for all single-winner sports events (that is not the purpose of ongoing add the individual matches would not Hecht blurbs). The men's event should not have been posted and neither should this be. Two wrongs don't make a right. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 19:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - If men gets to have it ongoing, the same should go for women. Clearly just as notable as the Mens tournament.BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree, as the US is the defending champion and I wasn't even aware the tournament was upon us. It barely registers in the media here from what I see(certainly that is not all-encompassing, just what I know). 331dot (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's huge and well followed outside the US. And as noted, this really is also about perception as well as equality.  Why wouldn't Wikipedia want to attract more female readers and editors by offering them information from the main page they might be interested in by leading them to quality articles (ooops, was that just the basic principles of ITN wrapped up in a nutshell?!)  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been posted, so this is academic, but that's why we post the final. We shouldn't post the tournament as Ongoing to right great wrongs. I don't think the men's tournament should have been posted to Ongoing either, but it is what it is. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it was, so we deal with it equitably and in a way that Wikipedia and its readers benefit, especially some of its minority readers. Of course posting the tournament while it's ongoing is far more helpful than just waiting until it says "England beat Scotland in the final".  We're serving our readers, in particular those who have felt excluded from this geek boys' project.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to ongoing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, but doesn't need the 2019, because that's OBVIOUS . The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull. Not updated at all. At least on my small sample size of 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup Group A. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a different article. We are only concerned with updates to the article actually in Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then more reasons for to pull as the article linked to ongoing has zero prose about the actual games. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull if it's stale, and then close the cricket nom as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Dubai bus crash

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose what's the point of creating and nominating a one-sentence substub? It's a waste of everyone's time. Article is now at AfD. -Zanhe (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing: Kivu Ebola Outbreak

 * Support -- Viva Nicolás (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good, seems important. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about posting a blurb? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? The number of deaths has passed an arbitrary threshold, yet the event is very much ongoing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Dr. John

 * Support Incredible entertainer,  6 Grammies.  Good article.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 00:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tragically, the article is a mess. It would require a LOT of work to get to Main Page standards. Teemu08 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly unreferenced. Stephen 02:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose In terrible shape, with large amounts unreferenced. About half should have been culled under the BLP rules. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose most definitely not in good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These citations are enough.,  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're in any doubt that he's dead. It's the rest of the article that's problematic. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Greatly tragic, and an important musician, but shoddy article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi John. Could you explain why you think it's "shoddy" and how it might be sufficiently improved to reach ITN/RD? Feel free to drop a note at the Talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about the 25 paragraphs that lack a single reference. Stephen 01:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Danish general elections

 * Comment It's not exactly correct to say that the centre-left alliance won. There is no formal alliance, only informal blocks. It might be better as "Centre-left parties win a majority in the 2019 Danish general elections". Number   5  7  10:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed to traditional denomination.  c o m p l a i n e r  10:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb (my blurb) Article in good shape, I am a major contributor. The blurb needs to be balanced, as difficult negotiations will start now, and it is not certain, that Frederiksen can become PM, but considering that the former PM has already resigned, the exception that she will become PM is fair. ― Heb the best (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Slight nitpicks, but corrected "wins" in the altblurb to "win" so as to match with the pluralized "centre-left parties". Also, added a definite article to "Prime Minister" and a concluding period to both at the end of both blurbs. (I should probably ask, are we even allowed to edit the proposed blurbs while they are being discussed? Because I have a feeling that the blurbs probably aren't freely editable, unlike the rest of Wikipedia--and thus, feel free to revert this if such edits are not allowed.) TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is information with unclear sourcing. The Opinion poll section needs a summary. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative blurb II (which I proposed) This is ITNR and the article is now properly sourced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose charming picture and all that, but a lot of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elio Sgreccia

 * Support Adequately referenced, acceptable quality article. Rockstone   talk to me!   18:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I added a cn tag, but anyway the article looks ok for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – CN tags remain and relies almost entirely on primary sources. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose  - Until concerns taken care of.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * CN tags resolved and a few more references to non-primary sources added. &mdash; <span style="font-family:'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif"> RAVEN PVFF  &middot; talk &middot; 00:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I will strike my oppose. This doesn't inspire confidence. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

RD: Jonathan Nichols

 * Brief article but satisfactory quality &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose article is basically a one-page CV, not actually listing anything he actually did, just the jobs he had. Weak.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lennart Johansson

 * Support article is not super long, but is well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Coverage is fine. Just need a few sources in his early life. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I have taken care of the issues. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 03:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Darwin shooting

 * Oppose at least presently, looks like domestic crime (guy with criminal history goes on a seemingly targetted shooting rampage). Terror has already been ruled out, but would be open if this was something with more motivation than just life-criminal being stupid. --M asem (t) 21:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose local criminal news story only.—Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the point being missed here really is that gun crime in Australia is really incredibly low for a nation whose population owns a reasonably large number of guns. Testimony to this is the sparse category of Category:Mass shootings in Australia which has a grand total of 11 entries, of which around 4 are from the past few decades.  Compare that to the gun crimes which occur in the United States (including those which aren't terror related, just loonies with guns shooting festival goers, for example), there have been more mass shootings in the US in the past month than in Australia in the past four decades.  In summary, it's probably a hundred times more significant than the Virginia shootings.  But the article is weak and the lasting significance is limited, hence the w/o.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreeing on this in part: the situation woudl be different if this was seemingly a law-abiding citizen that suddenly went on a spree. A known criminal (though legally out of prison) going on a shooting spree is not unusual anywhere. --M asem (t) 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Theoretically speaking, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM I'll make you a deal: the first time you comment on a random act of violence without making some unprovoked, unrelated derisive remark about your feelings with regard to gun violence in the United States being too routine to be notable, I'll buy you a pint. (LaserLegs logged out) --76.122.98.253 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? What did I say that was incorrect?  Australia has a much smaller population than the US.  It has a much lower gun crime rate than the US.  This crime is way more significant than what happened in Virginia, but as I said, probably still not significant enough for our main page.  I'm not deriding gun crime in the US, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy I"m afraid while absolutely nothing is done about the daily slaughter.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because you brought up a subject that cast a negative light on the US in a nom that had nothing to do with the U.S. Because you never pass up an opportunity to throw shade at our country, our government, and our people. Yorktown was 238 years ago; move on with your life.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In fairness, keep in mind that Cornwallis never made it to the surrender ceremony, so perhaps the news never made it back to the higher echelons of British society. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no way you can properly gauge the scope of this event without making a comparison to mass shootings that occur in the US. TRM was as objective as could be. You are trying to find things wrong with his !vote and casting aspersions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, this nom has nothing to do with the US, no one had previously brought up the US, and there isn't any reason I can think of to compare the USA to Australia. None, zip, zero, nadda. --116.84.217.160 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well think harder. Given that more than a dozen editors thought a non-terror-related shooting of twelve in Virginia, US, where mass shootings happen every day, was worth supporting, it was interesting to know why that dozen editors didn't think that a non-terror-related shooting of four in Australia, where mass shootings happen once a decade, was worth supporting.  This is setting a very useful precedent for other mass shootings in the US which aren't terror related, so if nothing else, at least we're raising the bar even further on the standard daily killing stories from the US.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think the actions that occur in the US cast a negative light over the US, not me comparing like-for-like events across the planet. Everything I said was factually correct.  If you think that "throwing shade" then I'm afraid there's no hope in having a reasonable conversation with you here.  As someone once said, "truth hurts".  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Yorktown was 238 years ago; move on with your life": Given the triteness of the comment, I'm not sure TRM is the one who needs to move on. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per TRM and the overall circumstances of the event.--WaltCip (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not really that notable a story considering the circumstances. Rockstone   talk to me!   05:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Comparatively insignificant in magnitude – and "not terrorism-related," according to Australia's PM. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - minimal lasting impact, and no terror connection, means that this falls short of the threshold of significance required for posting, despite the rarity of such incidents down under. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and TRM; mass shootings are incredibly rare in Australia (and therefore more noteworthy), but the circumstances of this don't rise to notability for ITN, in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem and TRM - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nechama Rivlin

 * support - good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * support article seems sourced and good to go. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – 2 citations needed. Also, she was an academic for 40 years. Can we manage more than 2 sourced sentences on her career and perhaps mention her academic career in the lead? She is currently portrayed as armpiece. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While those citations needed can be looked into, I do not think they warrant exclusion from being in RD. And your second point is a content issue, not a ITRN issue. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they preclude posting as this is a BLP issue. And the second point is a quality issue which is an ITNR issue.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Except she wasn't an academic, she worked in academia, but she was indeed most famous for being the wife of the President. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per C&C. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. If the three needed sources are added I may reconsider. Acabashi (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the article is now completely sourced. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I deleted the claims I couldn't find references for, and that were not in the Hebrew article. While the content itself could be expanded, the article itself is now referenced and as per ITNR, ready to go on RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. -- BoothSift Talks  16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? Which part of the article remains unsourced? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of "First Lady", for a start. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I added two refs for that. Again, we are not adding a featured article, we are adding an RD. The article is good to go, we don't need to nit-pick. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. We. Do. It has nothing to do with an FA: information is supposed to be supported by citations, including for BLPs - which includes those who have recently died. It's about having some basic standards in place, including for those that are directly linked from the front page. - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely spot on. I will give it a full review later on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My only question is, do the Israelis actually use the phrase "first lady" – presumably of U.S. derivation? Sounds a bit hackneyed to the modern ear. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question. A google search (which is indicative, rather than 'proof'), seems to have a heavy majority of "wife of the president" or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick Google search shows many RS are reporting her death as "First Lady", for example, ,,, Sir Joseph (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And many others do not. Those that do seem to have the term in lower case, as a descriptor, rather than capitalised as a formal title. The article is not reflecting the majority of sources at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support "the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post". So support. Rockstone   talk to me!   18:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article" which is where we're falling short. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The quality of the article is fine, what you are doing now is picking nits. You are discussing the content of the article now, not the quality of the article. If you want to improve the article, feel free to do so, but the article is appropriate to be mentioned in RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you at all. Where did I "discuss the content of the article"?  Perhaps you're confusing me with  someone else.  What I did say was that gaping chasms in the biography are a quality issue and that's  grounds for opposing an article.  I don't think  that's "picking  nits" but of course your mileage may vary.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's the gaping chasm in the biography? There is no quality issue in this article. It's sourced appropriately. She is famous for being the wife of the President, not for having anything to do with education. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Her 40 year career as a researcher in "academia" glossed over in two sentences. What did she research? Did she remain a research for 40 years with only a bachelor's degree? What did she do in the Department of Zoology? What did she do in the Department of Ecology? --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what she is notable for. Her entry is for being the First Lady of Israel. There are "millions" of people who do research in colleges, who knows what they do. Right now, yes, you are nitpicking. This article is sufficiently notable and of good quality for RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then her notability is entirely inherited. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then go file an AFD. You know the page is good enough for RD. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because she is notable. We just failed to write a "minimally comprehensive" article about her. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support- article is relatively brief but well sourced. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Adequately sourced, start length, so good enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this article is quite OK for RD as she's not super-notable and neither held any major public office; so coverage about her or her "career in academia" is justifiably limited. In addition, I also believe the article reflects that reality correctly, instead of aggregating tangential sources to write detailed "life in academia" section just for the sake of RD listing. That section would in essence only end up creating false narrative that her research work was heavily covered in the media which is not true. Is there any substantial opposition about the content (apart from not being "fully detailed")? – Ammarpad (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Mass ministerial resignations during Sri Lanka anti-Muslim riots

 * Support in principle. The general story--communal breakdown in Sri Lanka--is ITN-worthy as it would be in any country. The mass resignation is an event that provides for a useful and timely "event" hook to cover the story in ITN. For a possible blurb: "Nine Muslim ministers resign from the government of Sri Lanka amid deepening(?) communal divisions following the [church bombings]/[anti-Muslim riots]."--Mkativerata (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mkativerata on this being a worthy nom, but this article is a textbook example of why proseline is discouraged. As an uninformed reader, I was so distracted that I could not follow the narrative and comprehend the scope of the happenings.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unfortunately, the article remains substandard in terms of prose. It needs a thorough rewrite – if possible, by an English speaker or speakers versed in Sri Lanka. It could go into Ongoing – if there were current updates on major Eng.-lang. news sites. Still haven't seen any. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is dominating local news and sees international coverage as well. Banedon (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. While the article may not be in the best structure, the language is reasonably clear, grammar is fine, and all statements are well sourced. As this is very significant news, may I suggest this be posted sooner please? If anyone has the time and experience, please do feel free to make the necessary changes to the article. P31?P40? (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - while I agree with your sentiments, your support is tacitly provided in the nomination itself, and there is not yet sufficient consensus to post. No need to hurry things. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support ongoing - I feel that an ongoing listing such as that proposed below, rather than a blurb, is preferable to this story (which is of clear significance to ITN). Article quality is passable at present, but could be enhanced. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Banedon and others. The article doesn't seem to have any significant quality concerns, so it seems to be ready. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per BrendonTheWizard, I agree with him. -- BoothSift Talks  02:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article needs a complete overhaul for grammar, tone and to remove proseline. Stephen 06:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Stephen. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Linda Collins-Smith

 * Oppose not updated properly, tense issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article has now been updated. -Zanhe (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tang Dingyuan

 * Support Looks ok.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced. Thanks for starting this article Zanhe! Thsmi002 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Massacre in Sudan

 * Comment – This has been going on for several days, with up to 100 casualties reported. BBC quotes opsn saying "40 bodies pulled from Nile." – Sca (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment At the moment it doesn't appear that a blurb to support has been proposed, but the recent escalation appears to be the deadliest since the protests started and the president was ousted. As of less than an hour ago, the death toll since Monday rose to 108. I'd definitely support posting something on notability. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Seems to be a very significant geopolitical event. -- Viva Nicolás (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this is now a massacre. -Zanhe (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Article has not been updated &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been updated by User:Boud &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The protests article has only been updated a little: it might be better to nominate the 7-day-old article Khartoum massacre - |Khartoum_massacre pageviews for Khartoum massacre hit 15,000 yesterday while those for the protests article remain stable at about 2000/day. This is not going to drop in geopolitical importance: it's a massive test of nonviolent resistance that the Sudanese protestors have been preparing for half a decade (and have been puttting in action for the past several months) - whether the massacre continues and results in another El Sisi, or the military concedes Tunisia style, it's a big part of Arab Spring 2.0. Regarding the blurb, sources diverge, but they tend to focus on the Janjaweed/Rapid Support Forces having most responsibility for the massacre. Boud (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Protestors declare general strike. Ongoing? – Sca (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paul Darrow

 * Oppose I think you underestimate the amount of work needed - there are multiple paragraphs without citations.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree. There are at least 11 sources needed for the 'Career' section, and as this was a BLP until two days ago, ie he very recently deceased, we have to treat it in that regard. Acabashi (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - but if work is done, ping me.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Donald M. Fraser

 * Oppose as noted, bereft of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not even close.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Sri Lanka anti-Muslim riots

 * Oppose on both quality and that this is better suited as a Ongoing event. Daily Mirror should be a source avoided for RSes, for example. -- User:Masem 15:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are you? I haven't check but surely a no name signature is against policy. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An admin that typed an extra ~. User:Masem. P31?P40? (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That being said, Masem, can you help with listing it as "ongoing event" please? I am not familiar with ITN at all. P31?P40? (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd need to get rid of the blurbs, then the ongoing nom will show up. --M asem (t) 03:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Unfind any current reports on this among major Eng.-lang. sources. Sca (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 2 3 (from today). The latest news states that Bodu Bala Sena has promised to create countrywide pandemonium at noon on June 3. P31?P40? (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * None of those is a major Eng.-lang. RS. The editorial independence of state-owned Al Jazeera may reasonably be questioned, IMO. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sca. France24, Jakarta Post The Hindu Japan Times BBC. A little google search goes a long way. P31?P40? (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That BBC story is three weeks old. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, because there was nothing new other than violence. There is also a strong barrier blocking news going out, hence I was sourcing dependable local news agencies. P31?P40? (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed blurb to list as ongoing event, as discussed above. Ping Masem, Sca. Thanks. P31?P40? (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * New development. All Muslim cabinet ministers, state ministers, and deputy ministers, resigned. This happened 45min ago, while rioters beat up Muslim bystanders in other parts of the country. Major incidents are unfolding in Sri Lanka. Sources TBA. P31?P40? (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Might make a separate article – if properly sourced. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is very recent news. This facebook video is the only latest source elaborating the decision in English. As you can see in the video, there are mics from Reuters, BBC, and others. Hopefully, their articles will be up in a few days. Either way, this news item is eligible for ITN, as a news item, or as a current event. The folks here can decide. P31?P40? (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leah Chase

 * Support subject important enough and article good enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The article has referencing issues. It also has an unconventional structure, but that is not independently disqualifying. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 UEFA Champions League Final

 * Support good article, excellent update, well-formatted article, who could ask for anything more from an ITNR whose event has concluded simply minutes ago? Shades of that good ol' canoe race up the Thames, well done to SounderBruce for the hard work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go. SIX TIMES. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support without doubt. No reason not to.  IWI  ( chat ) 21:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Substantial article with impressive referencing Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Run of the mill event. Inconsequential. Occurs every year and not special in any way when viewed from different part of the world. Shameful. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mario "Chopper" Savio was a useful midfielder in away games, but got a bit over-excited inside the box. I wonder will we post the result of this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and WP:POINT. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR. However, I'm really puzzled by some editors' judgment of routine events. The 64th routine annual football match gets an automatic pass whereas the 18th deadliest mass shooting in the last 70 years of US history is deemed unimportant. -Zanhe (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ITNR. I suppose we could add "every mass shooting in the US" as an ITNR so every mass shooting gets an immediate listing.  The point is that this match will be spoken about and discussed for decades, whereas the daily mass shooting event in the US won't.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You will remember this; I will remember that. That is the definition of POV. Balance gets us to NPOV. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The 18th deadliest shooting in 70 years is not the same as "every mass shooting in the US", just as the UEFA Final is not the same as "every football match in Europe". -Zanhe (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, multiple people are shot to death every day in the US. This is no different in any sense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's not every day or even every year that more than a dozen people in the US are killed in a single shooting. If this off-topic thread is to continue, it should probably be moved to the relevant nomination. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. This off-topic thread is pointless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What topic are we discussing? Sca (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Antonio Reyes

 * Support - well sourced Spiderone  13:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but a few paragraphs are still unreferenced. Will get to it after the big match. now that paragraphs are adequately referenced.  Sounder Bruce  20:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Bruce, mostly fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready per edits completed by SounderBruce. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ani Yudhoyono

 * Support article looks fine. -Zanhe (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks decent.BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Virginia Beach shooting

 * Oppose unless the death toll rises sharply and/or this turns out to be a terrorist incident. Mass shootings in the united states are fairly commonplace occurrences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This has gone into double-digit fatalities (we currently have a boat crash with fewer deaths). I also recall noting here after the Suzano school shooting a few months ago that the eight deaths there were a lot for any such event outside the US; someone responded that that would be a high death toll anywhere. So I think 12 deaths here gets it on the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if only due to the brevity of the article at the moment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mass shootings are common occurrences in the US, and they never result in any action. Like suicides, they are best not reported.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A severe event, and the deadliest for some time, regardless of the occurrence. Thirteen people died so I definitely would say it is worthy of the main page.  IWI  ( chat ) 04:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support although mass shootings are common in the US, double-digit death tolls are relatively rare. This is the deadliest shooting of the year so far, see List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. -Zanhe (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --Wow (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is all over the news and is clearly notable. The article is in good shape. I really don't know what the argument is to not post this. Davey2116 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per Davey2116. Jusdafax (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes the List of deadliest shootings in the US. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:C486:B74F:DFAC:DEA3 (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Horrible news need more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:5EC0:2025:DA63:A047:946D:7A0:9C2 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both on the significance of the story and the current state of the article covering it Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 07:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as mass shooting is a daily occurrence in the US. It wasn't a terrorist incident because the perpetrator was most probably a mentally disturbed, god-fearing Christian White male in his 30s or 40s with a medical history. Besides you take the reactions out and you don't have enough meat in the article. - Invisible Lad (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is not just another mass shooting. It's the 18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949. -Zanhe (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per we currently have a boat crash with fewer deaths; that's because where the boat crash took place made it extremely rare. The same clearly can't be said for this relatively common phenomena, unfortunately. 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:EC31:1054:4F0C:C40F (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Although mass shootings are relatively common in the United States, double digit death tolls are relatively rare. Article looks fine. Compilergeek (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose shootings in the US are far too common for ITN. 184.216.174.71 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please restore the support !vote you deleted when you posted your oppose. You don’t get to do that, inadvertently or deliberately. Jusdafax (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, given the number of fatalities, this one is pretty big, even for the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Purely domestic incident - guy is fired, goes on shooting spree next day at place he was fired from. Tragic but part of the gun culture that we unforuntately have in the US. --M asem (t) 12:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per "18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949", and 43rd mass shooting in the US in May 2019. Other than the death toll there is essentially nothing to distinguish this from almost any of the other 147 events in the USA this year - 31 May was the 151st day of the year so it is essentially a daily occurrence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's like saying the 2019 UEFA Champions League Final (a shoo-in nomination above) is the 1,000th (random big number, likely much more) football match played this year in Europe. -Zanhe (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The point being made is that there's always a list that these mass shootings will feature on.  "Deadliest mass shooting this year", "Deadliest school shooting since Z", etc etc.  It's all indicative of inconsequential news.  So what?  We all know that mass shootings happen every day in the United States.  Nothing changes, it's not encyclopedic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Football games occur every day in Europe and nothing changes. How are they more encyclopedic than mass murders with real victims? -Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Mind you, what do I know, apparently I'm "clueless" so no point in discussing this with you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you actually answer the question? Besides, no one said the word "clueless" here besides you. Davey2116 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true, but don't let the truth get in way. And the answer is already clear: the Champions League final will be in the news for days, will be recalled for years and is ITNR.  Yet another mass shooting with no consequence whatsoever is actually barely encyclopedic.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – As far as we know, he was not fired and was a current employee. This is the deadliest shooting in the U.S. this year. It was also "18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949". Also unique about this incident is the use of a silencer. The death toll is significant. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019 (and other years) for a reason; they're simply run-of-the-mill.  Yes, this one was the largest death toll this year, but I don't see anything particularly notable about it otherwise.  Someone said above "it's the 18th deadliest mass shooting in the US since 1949".  Would we post anything else that was the 18th biggest something since 1949?  The answer is - probably not, unless it was particularly notable for another reason. Black Kite (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "18th biggest something" in the post-war era that causes a dozen deaths will likely be posted. The Sinking of Hableány, which was just posted, probably wouldn't rank in the top 50 deadliest maritime disasters in Europe in the last 70 years per List of maritime disasters in the 20th century. -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Which would be a good argument if more than 300 pleasure cruisers sank every year in Europe. But they don't. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - If someone had nominated any other event - weather catastrophe, non-ITNR sporting event outcome, etc - with a note of "18th largest of its type", the nom would be speedy closed. These events are considered routine now, and something particularly extraordinary has to happen in order for these sorts of events to stand out.--WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just another mass shooting in the workplace which while tragic has become all too common in the US. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted, commonplace and inconsequential. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The 18th-most-deadly mass shooting in the post-war history of one of the globe's 200-odd countries. Of course not. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Major shooting with a large number of deaths. Forget about the Champions League; I would say that Mass shootings in the United States is a much more important topic as a whole than Super Bowl, which we post every year per ITN/R. If we would post the 50th most significant Super Bowl since 1949, why wouldn't we post the 18th most significant mass shooting in the US? -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is becoming silly now, we don't post B because we posted A. You should know that.  This shooting will have precisely zero long term impact, in years to come no-one will talk about it or read about it, it's just a one-line in the list of mass murders in the US.  The other events on the other hand will be discussed and re-visited time and again.  Whether that's right or wrong in your (and others) personal opinion, is irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing silly about logical consistency. If we don't dismiss major sports events on the basis that they're routine, there's no reason to apply the "routineness" criterion to major crimes, which are by all means less routine. -Zanhe (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the logical consistency comes from the fact that the Champions League final is ITNR. Unless I'm mistaken, mass shootings in the US aren't on ITNR.  And mass shootings in America happen every single day and have little or no consequence whatsoever.  This is barely encyclopedic and probably could be covered by a single line in a general "Mass shootings in the United States in May 2019" article. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of ITN/R is to prevent events of virtually identical importance year to year from receiving disparate treatment each time it happens. As shootings are not regular and vary vastly in importance, it would be very difficult to construct an ITN/R item for them. However, it is entirely valid to compare non-ITN/R items to lowest-common-denominator ITN/R items in importance; the argument is that if an ITN/R has been repeatedly reconfirmed despite attempts to remove it from the list (The Boat Race comes to mind in particular), then anything at least as important as it should be posted. ITN/R does not magically set aside a class of events that do not need to meet significance requirements; rather, the inclusion of an item in ITN/R is the judgment that such an item does in fact meet the requirements in each of its iterations, and so logically the minimum level of importance cannot exceed whatever the ITN/R event attains. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not contesting the purpose of ITNR. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous (and callous) to say that "in years to come no-one will talk about it or read about it". Crimes of a much smaller scale are remembered and discussed all the time. See Laurie Dann. Those events were discussed in the news last year. Obviously, someone will remember. Zagal e jo^^^ 19:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - mass shootings are simply too frequent in the United States to justify posting this one, which does not have an especially massive death toll compared to the norm, particularly in recent times (18th most deadly since 1949, sure, but 6th most deadly since 2015). Arguments about the relative merits of other nominations are irrelevant, we consider this nomination on its own merits, and it is not significant enough as stands to merit a blurb in my view, unless there is some hitherto unknown development (terrorist connections, more fatalities, etc.) - Stormy clouds (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6th deadliest shooting since 2015 is another good reason to post. This means this high a death toll is a twice yearly event. This is confirmed by the fact that this is the deadliest shooting this year and since November 2018. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, to be perfectly candid. Twice yearly is way too often to be posting blurbs about what is ultimately one type of mass murder in one country, especially when there is and will be no lasting impact. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the news/Recurring items. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Davey2116. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – 13 murdered at one place/time is significant enough. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And by the way, no, 13 murdered at one place/time does not happen often. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per other supports, this does not happen daily/often-- BoothSift Talks  04:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed thirteen people killed at the same place/time hasn't happened in the United States since 17 people (not including the perpetrator) were killed at the same time/place in 2018 indeed it's only the joint 6th highest death toll in the United States in the last 5 years and only the 43rd times something similar happened in the United States in May 2019. I suppose you could argue that something happening more than once a day is not common at all, but not everybody is going to agree that makes it suitable for ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Common occurance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Common occurrence. Use of silencer made it unique. Regrettable, and only highlights failure of U.S. policy regarding an ongoing and upward trending epidemic of gun violence.  It was unique only in that it was an employee in a work-place setting.  I've written professionally about this for the past decade.  But this is news, but not new. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Although I'm a little bothered by the crass tone of some comments, and certainly don't agree that incidents such as this one are "best not reported," that this was evidently a purely personal act by an individual gone wacko militates against wider, ITN-level significance. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Hawkeye7 and because the article names the perpetrator, further increasing the risk of mass shooting contagion - posting would be irresponsible. Narayanese (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That should not be a concern of WP. If the guy was still alive, and only the suspect, there would be good reason to keep the name out until a conviction. But he died by law enforcement, and while there are BLP elements that still apply, there's no question he was the shooter. --M asem (t) 15:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I still oppose per all the above, but this isn't a good reason to oppose, given that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's certainly not here to repress or 'manage' disagreeable news out of concern for public safety. News is what is, period. (But again, this isn't ITN material). Sca (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)