Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2019

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

(Posted) RD: Nipsey Hussle

 * Support – Notable rapper, article is in good condition. Nice4What (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose a couple of [citation needed]s in there. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Citation needed and unsourced discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have placed a ref for the only unsourced disc. The other items in the discography are sourced in the prose.--- Coffee  and crumbs  08:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – I am not happy with all the citations to iTunes. Seems promotional. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Good to go.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral - deserves to be listed but the article's referencing needs work beforehand.  Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) 
 * Comment I've removed some of the offending links, tell me if anymore need to be removed 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Ukrainian presidential election

 * Comment why would this need to be ongoing, and not simply ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It will be ongoing during the day of March 31. Also, the second round on March 21 is very likely. -- Tohaomg Tohaomg  (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we post results, so the voting period is not relevant as an "ongoing" item. And we'll decide if a "second round" (in the past?) is relevant in due course, not just place a holding ongoing item based on that assumption.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a speedy close of this nom. As it is too early to post as ITNR or Ongoing as it is not Ongoing yet. BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Zuzana Čaputová new President

 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT 1 or 2 - Article is not ready and needs sources. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean Oppose then? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't we normally bold the election article? This one is clearly not ready yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current target article is tagged, and as noted above, we normally link the election page. Is this ITNR?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Her election is definitely ITNR, but it's not even linked, let alone bolded. Quite likely somebody should fix this, on grounds that a valid nom shouldn't get rejected simply due to the inexperience of the nominator. I'll probably be WP:BOLD and do it myself once I've found the election article, while perhaps at least temporarily leaving the original as an altblurb (somebody can always revert me if any of that is some kind of unexpected faux pas). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you've fixed it ahead of me, TRM. I was going to have the blurb and altblurb the other way round, but I guess it's fine the way you have it.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both articles are updated, so I've changed the bit that says the first one wasn't (not that we really need the complication of two articles when the election one will suffice). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb rather than blurb, for reasons indicated above. (Notability is irrelevant as the election is ITNR, so the nom should be posted once quality is satisfied (which I'll let others judge), so I'm just !voting about which blurb to use).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb as well. Event is ITNR and when compared to eg Ukraine elex, I cant really see how article quality is not satisfactory. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 – Sca (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Results need a summary in prose. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ready, IMHO. No preference on wording as long as elected is bold linked to election page.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Temporary oppose on quality Post-posting support - The issues are not so major that the article could not be improved in a reasonable amount of time. The story is obviously ITN/R, but the article isn't ready yet. Well-done to all the editors that got it ready for the main page 😊 Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted - it looks like the issues raised have been sorted now. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Turkish local elections

 * Weak oppose article is in condition, and I did note the Erdogan losses on my own local news stream, but not sure local elections rise to the bar required for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Local elections are of course not normally notable enough, but this is indeed exceptional. Istanbul is a city of 15 million people (more than many European countries) and the Mayor is one of the most powerful people in Turkey. Erdogan himself has previously said "he who wins in Istanbul is bound to win in Turkey". The fact that the opposition was able to take it under the current political climate in Turkey after 25 years of Islamist rule (under Erdogan himself, who used the position as a launchpad, and his successors), and the fact that this was despite the former Prime Minister being the AKP candidate, and the fact that this was combined with the AKP's loss of the capital and other major industrial cities are very noteworthy. This is indeed major news throughout the world. But we must wait until the official results confirm this. I would support posting only if the opposition's win in Istanbul is confirmed, not otherwise. --GGT (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post local elections. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally don't post local elections and I don't see the need to make an exception here. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per GGT - If these local elections prove to be exceptionally consequential (as GGT's understanding of the situation suggests that they could) I'll support, but otherwise I'll oppose  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are good reasons we only post local election results in the most extreme of circumstances; do you realise just how many of these things there are, often in places of considerably more significance than Istanbul? We wouldn't dream of posting even the most unexpected result in an election for Minister President of Bavaria, Mayor of New York City or Governor of Maharashtra, all of which are about an order of magnitude more significant than the mayors of Istanbul or Ankara. &#8209; Iridescent 19:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another reason for not posting local elections is that their interpretation is almost inevitably POV - for instance we could just as accurately be saying 'Bad news for opposition as ruling AKP increases its share of the vote'. And we also have no real reason for believing that this has much relevance to future national elections, despite such dubious claims being made for most local elections in most countries, as well as being used above to argue for notability, contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the ruling AKP had lost this local elections outright, then it might have been worth considering for inclusion. I also agree that there is a POV-pushing in the blurb that highlights only the losses incurred by the AKP notwithstanding the fact that they have increased their total vote share with a slightly reduced margin to the opposition CHP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of quite good quality; there's maybe 1-2 cn tags I could drop in, but that would represent a low percentage of the text, which is fairly extensive; indeed this is one of the better elections articles we'd have posted in a very long time, quality speaking. The story is prominent in international news.  It checks every box in the ITN requirements.  -- Jayron 32 10:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1) The blurb is inherently POV - highlighting the results in 3 cities bypasses the fact the AKP still won the local elections overall. 2) Once you acknowledge the AKP won the local elections overall, it isn't remarkable enough to justify a blurb.  3) We don't post local elections anyway. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 88.215.17.228. The AKP won.--WaltCip (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoff Harvey

 * Support. Well sourced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – If posting, retain Ranking Roger and remove Friedrich Achleitner. Roger was only just posted a few hours ago. Achleitner has been up for several days.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Geoff Harvey

 * Support. Well sourced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – If posting, retain Ranking Roger and remove Friedrich Achleitner. Roger was only just posted a few hours ago. Achleitner has been up for several days.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth A. Gibson

 * Oppose – Most of the content is devoid of footnotes.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ping if taken care of.BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Remains of victims of KT impact found in North Dakota

 * Comment Only to affirm that this is a paper that has cleared PNAS' peer review and is set to be published (news is going off pre-pub copies). See . --M asem (t) 17:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principle (good science story), but Oppose as I'm not seeing an update on the KT impact article. --M asem (t) 17:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose would make a suitable article linked from another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A bit stale for RD unfortunately. WaltCip (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I will support this. Article is suitable enough for ITN posting. And the findings are quite revolutionary within it’s field. BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose TBH, this is clearly nothing new, fossils of the same period have been discovered in the nation before, so this one doesn’t deserve any more attention than the previous findings. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:7C7C:169C:CE0D:F28D (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - this is almost the opposite of significant - a quasi-propagandistic bit of non-sequitur pseudo-support for a thoroughly questionable scientific orthodoxy. There are at least 3 rival theories for the main cause(s) of the mass extinction (a 'quasi-nuclear-winter' caused by the KT impact, climate change caused by CO2 (and perhaps other stuff) released by the super-vulcanism that created the flood basalts known as the Deccan Trappes, and climate change associated with a major change in sea levels) as well as various combinations of those (and of their finer details), plus the possibility of new theories (that we haven't yet thought of, or whatever). The KT impact is the current spectacular orthodoxy beloved of Hollywood movie makers, and nobody doubts that it killed lots of dinosaurs so it's no surprise that some corpses sometimes get found, but publicizing the discovery of some of those corpses on our front page, with the inevitable unstated implication that this is somehow hugely significant (when it isn't), will probably just mislead even more uninformed readers into thinking that 'the asteroid dunnit' is settled science when it isn't. It should be no part of Wikipedia or ITN's purpose to be making quasi-propaganda for questionable orthodoxies.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Questionable orthodoxies"? A number of very qualified people agree that the sudden and massive extinction event was caused by an asteroid, not a gradual dying off. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's in the nature of orthodoxies. A number of highly qualified supporters of an orthodoxy produce arguments in support of the orthodoxy. The article you point to doesn't even mention sea levels (at least not in the opening few paragraphs; I haven't had time to read the rest yet, but thanks for the link). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Better suited to DYK. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? The article is question is a Featured Article. It has long since passed out of the remit of DYK. G RAPPLE   X  17:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One would have to write an article on the site. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Stop only considering the news of power and sadness. Please. There are only three news items at the moment., "non-sequitur pseudo-support for a thoroughly questionable scientific orthodoxy"? Well, that's what you say.  ~^\\\.rT G '{~ 20:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * True, almost everything at ITNC is inevitably what some editor says.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And incidentally, if you don't want 'news of power and sadness', then why seek to remind us of an enormously powerful explosion, and a very sad mass extinction that will likely also sadly remind us that we are living though the following mass extinction right now? Tlhslobus (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait until the paper has been published and the article has been substantially updated. It looks like some paleontologists are optimistic but skeptical about the paper, so it might be a good idea to wait a while to see if there are any obvious errors with the paper first before posting. -- Ununseti (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Paper is to be formally published on PNAS tomorrow, fwiw. --M asem (t) 22:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: 's idea above seems reasonable. It might be a good idea to create a new Tanis (paleontological site) article and target the blurb there. -- Ununseti (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment no !vote because I've not read the article, but it is FA status it'd be nice to feature something other than a disaster stub if the update is up to scratch. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure what article RTG & BabbaQ reviewed, but the current target has not been updated.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Temporary oppose The PNAS paper is up now so let's await some article updates and responses to it. The New Yorker article and other press coverage are sensationalistic and are being taken skeptically by paleontologists, it appears.  The paper itself is more restrained.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it happened today, it would look like this Count Iblis (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh, nice video. Also here is the first news report I've seen that has a reaction to the published paper, fwiw. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Westcott

 * Support - Good article.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 'nough said.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Her's

 * Support will be interesting how the rest of the community deal with this being not an individual but an entire group... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article created posthumously but seems to meet notability requirements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be attracting significant international coverage. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose bands technically do not experience biological death. Only support if piped like so: Stephen Fitzpatrick and Audun Laading. We have double bios on Wikipedia like twins. If both twins died, we would post ITRD. The analogy applies here if there have been no other members of the band. Especially since even the band manager died leaving little chance of rehashing the band. I would also like to see some indication of more sources showing notability sans death.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * a piped link is acceptable. Maybe Stephen Fitzpatrick, Audun Laading? Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied. Support.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The listing in RD could also read “Members of Her’s”. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Our RD procedures are very clear; the members of the band need to have standalone Wikipedia articles to qualify for RD. Such is not the case here.--WaltCip (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD: Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis. The entire article in this case is about them. They are Her's.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Support then.--WaltCip (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Belated support. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agnès Varda

 * Oppose many unreferenced claims in the main prose and Awards section. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support There has been a lot of updates to her page today, particularly a list of her awards. Fred (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support lots of improvements/refs done since the nom was made.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - after improvements. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment nope, still unreferenced quotes and several awards without verifiable citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose changed to support. I had concerns about at least one citation needed in the text and some awards without citation needed but SirEdimon has fixed these issues. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I think I fixed the last few ref issues. and  (sorry for ping you people) could you check it out? If any issue persists I can try to fix it.--SirEdimon (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is detailed and now well sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - waking up to much improvement, thanks to all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nearly ready but still needs sources for the filmography and books. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The filmography is cited to Ref #59 at the top of one of the columns.--- Coffee  and crumbs  18:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD I am thinking about a blurb too. But the article is ready for RD.--- Coffee  and crumbs  18:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon Skolmen

 * Support It is quite short, but probably fine for RD. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Mongolian constitutional crisis

 * Oppose orange tagged basically no refs. Also oppose "Ongoing" this will make a fine blurb and if it's still getting updates when the blurb expires off it can go to ongoing. I don't know when "ongoing first" became a thing around here. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently Oppose on quality. Article currently has no citations whatsoever in entire sections. However, note it is also less than an hour old as of the time of this comment. Juxlos (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been improved with new references. Koopinator (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - But ping me if concerns are taken care of.BabbaQ (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Venezuelan blackouts

 * Oppose Poor infrastructural leads to power failures like this. Not seeming tied with the ongoing presidential crisis. --M asem (t) 02:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The presidential crisis is already in the ongoing. I'm nominating this as a separated item. I think it's very noteworthy a country like Venezuela being in the dark for three days. Besides, it's in all the major news outlets right now.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But as the BBC article states, these are frequent now in the country. --M asem (t) 03:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But this is the second major blackout (about 70% of the country is in the dark) . The first was posted as ongoing and I think this one is also noteworthy to be posted.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose: The article is not coming out indicating to me it is a current event ... and I'd hate to see articles with skewed editing relating to current... whereas Crisis in Venezuela is certainly a tragic continuing event. The deteriorating infrastructure is almost certainly linked to government policies and perhaps there is a risk of total grid breakdown for an indefinite period and I would link it as yet another effect of the crisis in Venezuela.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose sporadic blackouts in a country whose infrastructure is crumbling under the weight of outrageous international sanctions aren't that uncommon. The "Second blackout" section from several days ago says the Caracas metro shut down and shops closed early. Hardly ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Another blip in the Venezuelan presidential crisis, which appropriately is in Ongoing. Let's leave it there unless something drastic happens. Sca (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Any significance of this seems to be tied to the Presidential Crisis issue (that is, if it weren't a connection to said crisis, we'd not have seen the prominence given to the blackout). Given that it is a secondary story to the Crisis, and we're already linking the crisis AND the blackouts themselves are discussed extensively in the article on the crisis, I don't think we need a second link.  What we have is adequate.  -- Jayron 32 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Indian ASAT

 * Support It's in the news worldwide. I'm amazed that no one created a separate article for it.Amir (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - As my name is mentioned ... the big issue with ASATs is space debris and only potentially non biased sources on this point seem to be being accepted. Unless you accept the debris or political implications are an issue (mostly not central to this article) tbe event itself was over in 3 minutes (according to wikipedia ... but I'm not such of the source).  But it is significant for India.  Was probably warranting of own article to avoid undue weight in this one.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd note the two sources about (warning the first is access=url-limited) both describe the debris field effect more neutrally than sources used in the article ... I'd also note this is not mentioned in Space debris.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I want to support this, but the article needs basic info about the weapon like range, dimensions, propellant, development history, etc. Compare to RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 the American ASAT missile. Doesn't need to be that good, but has to be better than what we've got now. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we supposed to be post the fifth country that does it? The sixth?  The twentieth?  Noteworthy when it's the first or even second country that does it, but once you hit 4 it's hardly noteworthy enough for the main page. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with the above user. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose fourth? Wowsers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose If there were a stand-alone article on the missile, it might qualify for ITNR under "the first launch of any new rocket" criterion (a criterion I feel shouldn't exist but it's there), but if all we have is a short update that boils down to "India does something other countries have been doing since the 1960s" it has no particular significance (and it certainly isn't "in the news worldwide"). &#8209; Iridescent 21:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above stated facts.BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valery Bykovsky

 * Comment. The referencing needs improvement (not just the uncited paragraphs & awards; for example, the Gavrilin book needs full details) and a Russian speaker needs to confirm that 'to this day it remains the endurance record for a solo spaceflight' is supported by an appropriate, recent source. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to work on this, but there's now a BBC obituary that confirms the record that I queried, if anyone else is interested: Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The first reference is a bit iffy - I pulled it from the official page on Deaths. However, the other two sources are official sources from Roscosmos. Sp00n_exe (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'll have to oppose per above.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a lot closer now, I made substantial edits to the article. I received several Soviet spaceflight books in the mail and expanded the article as much as I could today. The main issue is the list of awards. I think it comes from warheroes.ru but I am not sure. Does anyone have any idea if it is an RS? If it is, we can cite the awards with it and the whole article will be cited at that point.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I am pretty sure this worldcat link is the book that was mentioned above.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I found a TASS source with most of the awards, I removed a few I did not find a citation for. If the quote would hold up posting, I recommend removing it. As far as I can tell this article should be good to go now.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Per Kees08. The article has undergone a complete make over.--- Coffee  and crumbs  07:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Friedrich Achleitner

 * Looks good to go. Sca (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michel Bacos

 * Looks okay. Interesting person. Sca (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm mildly confused by the "Films" section, are these films in which he was depicted? It's not clear.  And also, beyond the couple of awards, I'm not clear why this individual has his own article.  Does the conferring of either (or both) the B'nai and Legion of Honour awards make this individual notable beyond WP:ONEEVENT? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the Films section. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD." If you want to argue notability, this is not the place for it. This is just to determine if the article is sufficiently sourced, which it appears to be. But to answer your question, it's not ONEEVENT, the article mentions the hijacking, which is one event, the article mentions the Legion of Honor which is another event and the Bnai Brith, and the other award he received. In any event, this is inappropriate to discuss at ITN/RD, as I'm sure you are aware. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I'm entitled to discuss this, as many other people have at many other times.  I suppose I could have been more disruptive and just tagged it with AFD, but I thought I'd ask the question.  I don't think there was any need for your patronising and rude interjection.  And since I'd already made the suggestions in my statement, you just repeating them isn't helpful at all, there are numerous individuals who have won the legion of honour without articles, and the Bnai Brith isn't even notable enough for its own article.  Well worth discussing.  And do note, I wasn't opposing in any case.  Better luck next time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article survived an AfD in 2011, where these issues were discussed. Films still need sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added refs for films. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I can find no reason to object. BLP1E has exceptions and this certainly qualifies as significant role in a very notable event. The article is short but the sourcing looks decent enough. On a personal note, I say let this hero have his day.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Coffeeandcrumbs. Good enough for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

2018 Turing Award

 * Oppose only on quality. Bengio's should have a bit more about his studies (particularly if he stated in academia, you'd think there would be more); Hinton has some stray CNs, and I see some unsourced award statements in LeCun. All fixable. --M asem (t) 16:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements. Yes, they do award the "2018" award in March 2019 for some reason. I presume it's like taxes :P -- Ununseti (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is ITN/R and should be posted. The articles are adequate, and the current ITN entries are extremely stale. -Zanhe (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be posted, but all three articles still have the same problems I pointed out above. No one has seemed to address them. --M asem (t) 21:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt. blurb. —Hugh (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Uber-Careem

 * Oppose Funny to say but $3B is small potatoes. See Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney which we still have did not post.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We did post the news of Disney-Fox ; but that was a $50B+ deal. --M asem (t) 19:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose C&C is right this is small potatoes. --M asem (t) 19:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heinz Winbeck

 * Support Looks fine to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. (AGFing on the German-language sources.) Espresso Addict (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ranking Roger

 * Comment. There are a couple of paragraphs in the Collaborations section needing references. However, it isn't too far away. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now. If there are no objections in the next few hours, I plan to post myself.  -- Jayron 32 12:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Marked ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 19:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

 * Actually, the two years only start when the Council approves it and it's published, cf. the BBC source: It is now up to member states to approve the decision. If they do, they will have two years to implement it once it is officially published. Since that is only a formality though, I would support the item without the "giving member states 2 years to update laws to support it." part. A sad day for the internet indeed and certainly noteworthy if for all the wrong reasons. Regards So  Why  14:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not an EUian so I am a bit confused on the exact next state (between EP and the start of the 2 year deadline). I did add altblurb to point out that it is still on the states to make the laws happen, this is only the Directive to force those laws. --M asem (t) 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Next is approval by the Council, followed by publication in the official journal. The two year deadline does not start before 20 days after publication. Since the member states could theoretically still stop the Directive, both alts are incorrect though because if they do, the Directive would have failed. Regards So  Why  15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I've been reading, but most do not expect the Council to have a different result; the fact it passed the EP means it had even a better chance in the EC (eg passing the EP was considered the only point where this could be stalled). So Altblurb 2 is added to express the basic fact of EP passage. --M asem (t) 15:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The approval of this directive means that more than 500 million people (including the United Kingdom) will have limited freedom on the Internet. That's a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure we should be using "controversial", let the readers decide upon that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find a RS media source that is not calling this in some form "controversial". The bulk of our article is about how controversial this is, which is a neutral fact. Now, whether WP favors or opposes this, that clearly should be left out. --M asem (t) 16:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most things are controversial to someone. This should just state the facts without promoting a POV, even if sources are calling it that.  When most sources refer to an attack as a terrorist attack, you strongly oppose that modifier.  This is the same.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Removed the term from each blurb. --M asem (t) 19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I opposed it the last 4 times I opposed it: The article is not up to scratch. The "Content" section, that most critical section, is a list of objections to specific parts and in no way summarizes the actual content of the directive. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I see in the content section is where there has been changes that were influenced by some criticism. But the bulk of the criticism or support is all well outside that section. We don't need to fully document the contents of each Article, just give the broad highlights that have been noted by 3rd party sources. --M asem (t) 19:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Article 13 / 17 " with a new, conditional exemption to liability.". What exemption? What is the mechanism by which it will work? I read the next sentence several times it doesn't make sense. Article needs work. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The end of the Internet as we know it. The article can be expanded, but it's pretty long. w umbolo   ^^^  18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Very long and uninformative I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A modest suggestion -- can "voting" editors weigh in on both quality and signficance? I got a feeling this nom will be longer than the article and consensus may be tough to judge.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment added alt-blurb 3, which is factually accurate. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements Highly consequential for half a billion people. Editors have raised a number of legitimate criticisms of the article's quality, but if they are addressed, this should be posted swimmingly. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - this means a new era for the "me me me generation" that posts videos etc with songs that are copyrighted.BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...what? Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This new law basically means that people will not be allowed to use some music for work they do like videos on Instagram, Youtube etc.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * i got that, but why is that your !vote explanation? see GreatCaesarsGhost's comment Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Baby boomers post on Instagram? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support pending improvements - Very significant event. Quite updated, and seems ready to be reported. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC) With a bit of extra updates and cleanup, it should be ready to go be presented to the world. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Still a few citation needed tags in there. I'd favour the original blurb, as it adds a bit of context to the immediate implications without overly lengthening the blurb; otherwise, altblurb2 is fairly direct and to the point. Altblurb3 and altblurb1 sound a bit more awkward to my ear, so I'd avoid phrasing similar to those. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment according to our own (confusing) article on the subject "The Directive still requires final approval by the member states." and "The Council of the European Union will make a final decision on the measure on 9 April 2019.". It would seem there are still several hurdles between now and the end of the process. Probably best to wait. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most sources consider the Council's vote (which is the approval by the member states - one vote per state) moot based on the vote breakdown from the Parliament vote. --M asem (t) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I heard Italy might veto it. I'd prefer waiting on posting this until the decision is 100% final with no blockades remaining. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with holding off to the 9th, and understanding that if there is not significant news coverage then, then this should still be posted because this being the point of news. I doubt it will not be covered, but again, as many press outlets have conceded the battle is over, there might be far less coverage then. --M asem  (t) 16:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support seeing lots of coverage, affects lots of people. Banedon (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A very notable event in law related to internet copyright. This will have far reaching consequences, more than the GDPR did. I am seeing a lot of protests about it already on twitter. Swordman97  talk to me  03:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – If this has no effect unless/until EU member states enact legislation implementing it, there would seem to be little or no immediate impact. Sca (talk) 13:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EU member states are required to put laws into effect to meet the directive or will be considered infringing on the Directive. However, when those laws come into effect is up to member states - they just have 24 months once this is published to get it done. Some already have appropriate language ready to go. The directive is specific enough that tech companies already have discussed what plans they will need to prepare for and then tweak as the various national laws are passed, which are not going to all come on a single day, but over the next two years. And when a national law supporting the directive is passed, when that law starts is up to the country (the Directive doesn't specify any date) so enforcement will start before the 24 months is up. Events are thus in motion already, outside of this last vote on April 9th. --M asem (t) 13:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Thai elections

 * Support A few sections of the article could use some references, but the article is overall in good shape and improvements shouldn't be too difficult. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be prudent for us to wait for the "official" result. Why should we be in haste to post unconfirmed result in a journalistic fashion? – Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's in the news now, the official results might take a while, and even if we post now we can always update the blurb if and when the official results are given. Banedon (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then this lends me to oppose outright. We'd not rush to post "unofficial" result because we fear the "official" one "might take a while" and be lost in oblivion; we are not racing to beat any print deadline. I am afraid, that's quite contrary to what ITN is for. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose we simply don't post "unofficial" results, this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting any unofficial result. Actually I can't remember any blurb that says 'this is unofficial result'!– Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until official results are in, support once they are and have been added with properly cited text. Article is of sufficient quality otherwise.  -- Jayron 32</b> 11:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The results the Election Commission is expected to announce on Friday are still "unofficial". The final "official" results are expected to be announced on 9 May, after complaints are investigated and disqualifications made, so it will be a long wait. If we want to post an update on the election results (rather than confirmation of the prime minister), we'll need to go by the "unofficial" results. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I do think its fair to talk about the story around the nature and chaos around this election and that because of that, official results will not be released until May. --M asem (t) 14:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we should wait for the full unofficial results due on 29 March, but probably not until May. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Thai political parties are making moves, still no official results.  Banedon (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Results were announced Thursday. While parties will continue their political manoeuvring, the story will probably fizzle out from now. If it's not posted now, it will have to wait for the formation of government in May. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel

 * Oppose US is the only other nation other than Israel to recognize the Golan as Israeli.... We should not include fringe opinions on the Main Page.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't think we should post this story for other reasons, I would not call the US's view in the larger issue around Israel and the middle east "fringe". They are a significant player in the Middle East situation. --M asem (t) 01:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a major development for Syrian politics as well, this isn't suppose to be American-centric. United States is the first to recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel, similar to how the United States was first to recognize a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Nice4What (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Did we post when Syria recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as countries? The US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem was a dramatic shift in policy and had lasting consequences, but I'm not sure that this story is comparable. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation is that it's about as consequential as any member of the UN recognizing any other de-facto-but-not-de-jure polity. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Syria does not have much geopolitical clout compared to the US. Beyond the Middle East, the US disregarding Syria's territorial integrity may have wider consequences (see this article). Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see why we wouldn't post this. The US is a world superpower (hyperpower even). That a world superpower can embrace a fringe position makes it more notable, not less. This will be of interest to other countries as well, especially those in the Middle East; in fact Turkey has already said it's going to raise the issue at the UN. This kind of international event with future repercussions should be posted on ITN. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the US being a world superpower doesn't mean that all of its foreign policy decisions are automatically ITN/R, and the Turkish & Israeli governments are at odds with each other in more or less every situation. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not invoking ITNR here - just that it's in the news. US policy decisions make much more news than, say, Paraguay's for a reason. Turkey is hardly going to be acting alone in this case either. Syria also said it will contest the recognition, Russia expressed concerns, etc. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Notable development. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Worrying development, and not just for the Middle East. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The orange one is "deviating significantly from the prevailing views" on this matter. By definition that is fringe. I don't think it matters how powerful the nation is. imagine if the dean of the most respected university in a particular scientific field deviated from an accepted theory despite the opposition by an overwhelming majority of the researchers in that field. Would we even mention their opinion on the article about that subject. In the same vain, we should not elevate this. I am reminded on Twitter's laughable insistence that blue check mark verification icon does not represent endorsement. By using the word "recognize" we inherently are implying that this is somehow the acceptance of known fact. Sure the word has many definitions but a few of them have this connotation. It would be less misleading to say "The United States claims that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights." or something like that. I may even agree to "proclaims" (which is in the title of the article), added as Alt.---  Coffee  and crumbs  07:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The comparison to Jerusalem is a false equivalence. Many scholars including Palestinians accept Israel's sovereignty over at least West Jerusalem. And since a nation can choose to put their capital anywhere within their territory, it is not farfetched to recognize this claim, no matter how damaging critics believe the policy may be. But unilaterally recognizing a swath of disputed land as belonging to one of the belligerents in the dispute is surely fringe when no other nation has joined in the proclamation.--- Coffee  and crumbs  08:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, the "orange one" has the authority to speak for the U.S. in this regard, but it's a bit intellectually dishonest to frame this as "a superpower is endorsing a fringe idea!" While it's technically true, but it's really just one guy who (I think BLP would allow me to say) might be a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. Let me pose this question: how is the situation materially altered beyond the headline?  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This bit of Machtpolitik rhetoric doesn't change anything on the ground, which has been controlled by Israel for half a century. Sca (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The country of Israel is basically a giant territorial dispute, internationally. When a major country like the U.S. recognizes an area as being controlled by Israel it's very much newsworthy and deserves to be posted. I would feel the same if the U.S. declared Syrian soveriegnty over the Golan Heights. ViridianWindow (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is merely political posturing on many levels. Chief among them is the fact that there's really no such thing as "recognizing sovereignty" of a piece of conquered territory. A country can recognize new states such as Kosovo or East Timor, but not the Crimea or the Golan Heights. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * support - whether we like it or not this is a significant recognition by the US which is a major player in this situation.BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but WHY? Why is it significant that the US is supporting this claim, when Israel maintained control for 50 years with no support? What changes for any single Syrian or Israeli, for any square meter of this territory?  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose One country recognizes that another one has gained territory from a third, more than half a century after it happened. We've had 52 years to see the actual effect of this event; the recognition itself isn't particularly world-shaking.  By the way, this is hardly a fringe position; nobody argues that Granada is Spanish-occupied Moorish territory or that Asia Minor is Turkish-occupied Greek territory.  Nyttend backup (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, nobody argues that Granada is Moorish territory occupied by Spain because the international community has long recognized Granada as part of Spain's legitimate and legal borders, whereas Moor isn't a country. In this case, the international community's stance is that Israeli presence in the area is illegal under international law, and the US recognizing the opposite is not enough to change that in any material way. I agree that the decision from the US isn't consequential (the de facto situation that Israel has a presence in the area is unchanged, the de jure position that the UN views that as illegal is unchanged). The clout from the US as a "major player" will prove useless in the Security Council, where France, UK, China, and Russia all intend to oppose the decision from the US. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing more than Trump pandering to his base. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale, suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? The bot will expire it off in a few days, the discussion has no devolved to a contentious wall of text, consensus may still emerge. Leave it alone. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was in the news four days ago. Now it isn't. Further, throughout history territory has changed hands as a result of warfare. Fairly recent example: The Oder–Neisse annexations, which though affecting millions of people required only half as long to be recognized by the losers. – Sca (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fred Malek

 * Oppose - Only one page and is the English one. Without rellevance. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All individuals with a standalone WP article are presumed to be notable and may have an entry in RD as long as the article is updated and of sufficient quality. "Relevance" would be, well, not relevant in this case. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not fully updated for tense. Some sources needed (not tagged) and others seem to me insufficiently solid to support the material. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few citations needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Scott Walker (singer)

 * Comment Have been working on it and think I've addressed all the citation issues. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs and discography lacking a single reference. Stephen 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Discography is unreferenced. However, in the text, most of the albums have references so it needs to be added to the discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose several uncited claims in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added refs for outstanding uncited claims.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - good enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above, thank you, yorkshiresky! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Excellent work. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel

 * Oppose US is the only other nation other than Israel to recognize the Golan as Israeli.... We should not include fringe opinions on the Main Page.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't think we should post this story for other reasons, I would not call the US's view in the larger issue around Israel and the middle east "fringe". They are a significant player in the Middle East situation. --M asem (t) 01:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a major development for Syrian politics as well, this isn't suppose to be American-centric. United States is the first to recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel, similar to how the United States was first to recognize a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Nice4What (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question Did we post when Syria recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as countries? The US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem was a dramatic shift in policy and had lasting consequences, but I'm not sure that this story is comparable. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation is that it's about as consequential as any member of the UN recognizing any other de-facto-but-not-de-jure polity. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Syria does not have much geopolitical clout compared to the US. Beyond the Middle East, the US disregarding Syria's territorial integrity may have wider consequences (see this article). Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see why we wouldn't post this. The US is a world superpower (hyperpower even). That a world superpower can embrace a fringe position makes it more notable, not less. This will be of interest to other countries as well, especially those in the Middle East; in fact Turkey has already said it's going to raise the issue at the UN. This kind of international event with future repercussions should be posted on ITN. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the US being a world superpower doesn't mean that all of its foreign policy decisions are automatically ITN/R, and the Turkish & Israeli governments are at odds with each other in more or less every situation. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not invoking ITNR here - just that it's in the news. US policy decisions make much more news than, say, Paraguay's for a reason. Turkey is hardly going to be acting alone in this case either. Syria also said it will contest the recognition, Russia expressed concerns, etc. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Notable development. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Worrying development, and not just for the Middle East. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The orange one is "deviating significantly from the prevailing views" on this matter. By definition that is fringe. I don't think it matters how powerful the nation is. imagine if the dean of the most respected university in a particular scientific field deviated from an accepted theory despite the opposition by an overwhelming majority of the researchers in that field. Would we even mention their opinion on the article about that subject. In the same vain, we should not elevate this. I am reminded on Twitter's laughable insistence that blue check mark verification icon does not represent endorsement. By using the word "recognize" we inherently are implying that this is somehow the acceptance of known fact. Sure the word has many definitions but a few of them have this connotation. It would be less misleading to say "The United States claims that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights." or something like that. I may even agree to "proclaims" (which is in the title of the article), added as Alt.---  Coffee  and crumbs  07:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The comparison to Jerusalem is a false equivalence. Many scholars including Palestinians accept Israel's sovereignty over at least West Jerusalem. And since a nation can choose to put their capital anywhere within their territory, it is not farfetched to recognize this claim, no matter how damaging critics believe the policy may be. But unilaterally recognizing a swath of disputed land as belonging to one of the belligerents in the dispute is surely fringe when no other nation has joined in the proclamation.--- Coffee  and crumbs  08:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yes, the "orange one" has the authority to speak for the U.S. in this regard, but it's a bit intellectually dishonest to frame this as "a superpower is endorsing a fringe idea!" While it's technically true, but it's really just one guy who (I think BLP would allow me to say) might be a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. Let me pose this question: how is the situation materially altered beyond the headline?  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This bit of Machtpolitik rhetoric doesn't change anything on the ground, which has been controlled by Israel for half a century. Sca (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GCG. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The country of Israel is basically a giant territorial dispute, internationally. When a major country like the U.S. recognizes an area as being controlled by Israel it's very much newsworthy and deserves to be posted. I would feel the same if the U.S. declared Syrian soveriegnty over the Golan Heights. ViridianWindow (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is merely political posturing on many levels. Chief among them is the fact that there's really no such thing as "recognizing sovereignty" of a piece of conquered territory. A country can recognize new states such as Kosovo or East Timor, but not the Crimea or the Golan Heights. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * support - whether we like it or not this is a significant recognition by the US which is a major player in this situation.BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but WHY? Why is it significant that the US is supporting this claim, when Israel maintained control for 50 years with no support? What changes for any single Syrian or Israeli, for any square meter of this territory?  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose One country recognizes that another one has gained territory from a third, more than half a century after it happened. We've had 52 years to see the actual effect of this event; the recognition itself isn't particularly world-shaking.  By the way, this is hardly a fringe position; nobody argues that Granada is Spanish-occupied Moorish territory or that Asia Minor is Turkish-occupied Greek territory.  Nyttend backup (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, nobody argues that Granada is Moorish territory occupied by Spain because the international community has long recognized Granada as part of Spain's legitimate and legal borders, whereas Moor isn't a country. In this case, the international community's stance is that Israeli presence in the area is illegal under international law, and the US recognizing the opposite is not enough to change that in any material way. I agree that the decision from the US isn't consequential (the de facto situation that Israel has a presence in the area is unchanged, the de jure position that the UN views that as illegal is unchanged). The clout from the US as a "major player" will prove useless in the Security Council, where France, UK, China, and Russia all intend to oppose the decision from the US. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nothing more than Trump pandering to his base. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale, suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? The bot will expire it off in a few days, the discussion has no devolved to a contentious wall of text, consensus may still emerge. Leave it alone. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was in the news four days ago. Now it isn't. Further, throughout history territory has changed hands as a result of warfare. Fairly recent example: The Oder–Neisse annexations, which though affecting millions of people required only half as long to be recognized by the losers. – Sca (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Fred Malek

 * Oppose - Only one page and is the English one. Without rellevance. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All individuals with a standalone WP article are presumed to be notable and may have an entry in RD as long as the article is updated and of sufficient quality. "Relevance" would be, well, not relevant in this case. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not fully updated for tense. Some sources needed (not tagged) and others seem to me insufficiently solid to support the material. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a few citations needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Scott Walker (singer)

 * Comment Have been working on it and think I've addressed all the citation issues. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple paragraphs and discography lacking a single reference. Stephen 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Discography is unreferenced. However, in the text, most of the albums have references so it needs to be added to the discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose several uncited claims in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added refs for outstanding uncited claims.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - good enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above, thank you, yorkshiresky! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Excellent work. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed, Reposted) Special Counsel investigation conclusion

 * Support global headlines today, "in the news" for nearly two years, this is the time to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed, this is the time to post. Davey2116 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support Ongoing, as it appears this story might develop over the next week. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See comment below. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose "not sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice" is misleading. Mueller report according AG Barr did not make a determination on this question. I support posting on the collusion question.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps the hook could say "not sufficient evidence the campaign colluded with Russia, while allegations of obstruction of justice were not addressed", or something like that? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * However, Barr did address that issue.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While Mueller presented the available evidence, he did not make the final call. The blurb is technically correct but lacks context and is misleading for such a controversial topic. Mueller as Barr quotes said it does not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't I or whoever that accepts this nomination and puts it on the Main Page improve the blurb to add the context that it does not exonerate Trump completely yet? Aviartm (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. ITN also requires that the updated bolded articles meet certain standards. See oppose by below.---  Coffee  and crumbs  21:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. I made it present tense and improved it. I think if I added the exoneration part will make it too long but I am not sure. Should be added though. Aviartm (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not improved it at all.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about now? Aviartm (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb only .--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But then you changed it.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I changed it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * & I think my altblurb is best because in the four page letter, Barr states that they could not conclude on obstruction of justice but did say no collusion..."The Special Counsel’s investigation did not ﬁnd that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to inﬂuence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." You can read the letter here. Aviartm (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , "did not establish ... collusion" =/= "exonerated on collusion". The letter doesn't say Mueller concluded there was no collusion, he just didn't conclude that there was. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did recognize earlier today the ambiguous nature of the letter. However, in the second half discussing obstruction of justice, Barr deliberately says "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." I feel that if the DOJ had an exact position on collusion, they would clearly state so like they did in the letter on obstruction of justice. Aviartm (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , what you "feel" is not the same as what we objectively know. Mueller wrote: "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Yes, that quotation is in the letter but under the Obstruction of Justice section, not the whole letter. This is also stated in the letter that clears the confusion: "In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction." So the Special Counsel did recognize that they could not find any links of Trump and/or his Campaign colluding but could not reach a consensus on obstruction of justice. These are two things. Aviartm (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime" is also not the same thing as an exoneration. Especially since we don't yet know what the evidence is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes but wouldn't you think the DOJ, if they knew that reliable, reputable evidence investigated by the Special Counsel showed that the President did collude, they would be saying that? The Special Counsel did conclude, it is done. That is the Special Counsel's findings assessed by the DOJ. Since the blurb is to report the findings and not speculate further potential investigation, altblurb2 appears to be the most appropriate. After all, Wikipedia is not a NOTACRYSTALBALL. Aviartm (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wouldn't think too much of it because that's the unknown: WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I could easily suggest that Barr's letter was the coverup Trump appointed him for, but I can't be sure of that. All I know is that he hasn't been exonerated from anything, and the other investigations continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Times link was to the AG Letter, not their take, so no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The only thing that Trump has been exonerated of is allegations of Russian collusion, not Obstruction of Justice. This is what I have repeatedly been saying. That is why Ad Orientem has been saying. Please read my 3rd most recent comment or go to the Donald Trump Article Talk Page where we have conversed there. Aviartm (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@ What you know is neither here nor there. We go by what reliable sources are saying. And they are all reporting that the investigation by the Special Counsel has stated that there was no collusion between either the President or his campaign and Russia. That's what is being reported and that is what we go with. Anything else is likely a BLP vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , saying that "there was no collusion" is not the same thing as "the SC did not find collusion" and that's the important distinction to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the SC did state that there was no collusion. They did not state that there was insufficient evidence. They said there was no collusion. See the above quote from the NY Times. Any statement saying or implying anything else is false and a BLP violation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the SC hasn't stated anything publicly. This is what AG Barr is stating, not Mueller. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It is what pretty much every reliable source is saying. And that, again, is what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , we really need to be careful with what we're calling "reliable sources" in this because sometimes you find out that you were just wrong. This needs to be vague. Jerry Nadler: “His conclusions raise more questions than they answer.” – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We abide by what RS sources say. Not our intuition, gut feelings, personal knowledge, suspicions etc. If they make a mistake and correct it, then so do we. That I have to explain this to an admin is disconcerting. Right now RS sources are pretty much unanimously saying that Trump and his campaign have been cleared of the collusion accusations. Your position is starting to look like a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , perhaps it is. Alt2 is probably a fine compromise blurb, and all of the updates that happen will be nominated and debated. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. No opinion on item or precise wording but the blurb needs to mention in bold the target article, avoid overlinking and be in the present tense. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no bolded link in the blurb. If it's to be Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), that article hasn't gotten an (unreverted) update - certainly not one meeting WP:ITN - and much of it hasn't even been updated for the Friday conclusion-sans-results. —Cryptic 20:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support  Great, this is over. In the news, etc etc. Now, the real investigations of the NY AG, SDNY, and relevant House committees can really kick off. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * of SDNY or by SDNY? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , "by". I just want us all to remember that the investigations of Trump are not over. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to ongoing because it's clear that this isn't "over" based on a partisan AG's two-day summarization of a two-year investigation. The House Judiciary Chair points out that this three-and-a-half page letter from Barr raises more questions than it answers. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose only on quality, there's a handful of CNs in the article. This is ITN-worthy ending a good year+ long story that has been in the news throughout. --M asem (t) 20:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose US house Democrats are demanding a hearing - I would wait until it is done. Juxlos (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * House Benghazi rules demand five investigations, none of which turn up any evidence but are insinuated to have found a "smoking gun". The thing is, the DOJ special counsel investigation has concluded. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added. Feel free to tinker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But isn't showing up. Is the template busted somehow? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Our edits conflicted but I ensured your edits and mine came to fruition. Hopefully everything shows up. I added your altblurb. I don't see it either. Not sure why. Aviartm (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing only – Being not declared guilty is not the same as being declared not guilty, i.e. exonerated, as AG Barr acknowledges, and Demos "vow to press on with their own investigation." Like Brexit, it ain't over. – Sca (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 I think we finally have a Donald Trump blurb that we can post. Note: I strongly oppose the first two proposed blurbs as they incorrectly imply that the issue of collusion was not definitely ruled out by the investigation. All of the sources I am reading, including fairly left leaning ones like the NY Times and WaPo are saying that it was. Only the question of obstruction of justice remains open due to lack of evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.


 * Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.
 * Great job on the altblurb2. Currently am having a conversation with Muboshgu if you noticed and that is what I was trying to convey. Great job on the altblurb! :) (I was about to upload my comment but our edits conflicted with your article pice.)


 * Support altblurb2 I support altblurb2. Aviartm (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not a comment on whether or not it should be posted, but if I'm not mistaken they've not released it to the public yet, have they? Developments of interests could be expected in the near future (not suggesting that this nomination waits, though) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. – Sca (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support but I have my doubts about alt 2: it should mention the Trump campaign, not Trump himself. Banedon (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I second that any blurb posted should refer to the campaign Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Appropriately worded to address NPOV concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm fine with either alt2 or alt3. The first two are inconsistent with what is being reported. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed but they are about 250 characters long. Perhaps shorten to "...U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign and Russia and there was insufficient evidence of obstruction of justice." More trimming may be necessary.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This nonsense needs to be pulled. The words of William Barr are not the final steps of this process, and we don't even know if the letter is an accurate summation. Nihlus  04:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull The blurb as posted would be noteworthy if it were true, which it isn't. As those are the words of Barr and not Mueller, let's wait a few days to get the facts correct...or just say the investigation was closed and let that be it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” - Barr AND Mueller's words together on Russian interference. Again, lastly, with Obstruction of Justice: "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” - Barr AND Mueller's words together. Current Blurb holds both of these points. Nothing is distorted about the Current Blurb. Aviartm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull. The blurb as currently stands has an editorial bent.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment instead of pulling, why not just shorten the blurb to what has happened which is "The U.S. Special Counsel investigation, headed by Robert Mueller (pictured), concludes.". Then we can keep this obviously notable story with a decent article in the box. Nifty right? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would concede that the consensus above says the *ending itself* is noteworthy (I'm neutral/weak oppose myself). Barr's summary is decidedly POV though and should be removed in any case.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt this will continue in the house, but the DOJ investigation is done and as AG it's Barrs summary to write. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as best as I can tell, under the normal legal process, Barr's decision as AG to not instigate any charges means this is over. Barr has the option to not share the Mueller report with Congress or the public. Now, I know Congress is trying to force him to turn it over or get him to testify, but this is all out-of-process at this point; those events may not happen, but the AG closing the book on the matter is an end point. --M asem  (t) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't see a problem with the blurb. No need to pull.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's definitely no consensus to have it posted right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment As I have noted (repeatedly) above, the blurb reflects what has been reported in virtually all of the reliable sources. That is what we go by. Suggestions that the United States Attorney General is misrepresenting the findings of the special counsel sounds like a lot of IDONTLIKEIT POV/OR with a dash of fringe conspiracy theory thrown in for flavor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No one suggested he is lying, but he is a biased partisan in this matter - there is every reason to think his specific interpretation of the findings will be colored by that partisanship. RS's have gone to great lengths to attribute the statement to Barr, and it is WP:OR to transfer it to Mueller.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We shouldn't attribute Barr's words to Mueller. Originally, only Barr knew what was in the report, but it has since been delivered to Congress, and Congress already disputes Barr's summary of it. We're in no position to make the judgment call that Barr is right and Congress is wrong. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Once again: We still don't know the details of the report. "Concludes that there was no collusion" is an oversimplification of an issue summarized as "did not find evidence that..." etc. As noted above, being not declared guilty is not the same as being exonerated.
 * However – particularly in view of the amateurish pulling of Previn on Feb. 28 – I can't support pulling this one. Instead, suggest we relegate it to Ongoing. The vagaries of U.S. politics being what they are, it's likely to go on as a news story for some time. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Change to altblurb4, as suggested by above. The current blurb is wayyy too long. I don't think it's a good idea to try and encapsulate such a complex topic in a blurb. Let the reader go to the article to see what the investigation found. -- Ununseti (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: To clarify, I weakly oppose all the other blurbs for being too long / WP:UNDUE-y. I would support Ongoing. -- Ununseti (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I've proposed altblurb5 without the part on the obstructed justice. I also strongly oppose altblurb4 because its wording tells absolutely nothing about the investigation, while a blurb should always report a clear message extracted from a newsworthy story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment it's pretty clear that more time needs to be taken to establish a consensus-led blurb for this story. Using the ITN section of the main page as a sandbox is inappropriate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another reason to stick it in Ongoing for now, rather than just ignore it. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The level of IDONTLIKEIT commentary in this discussion, and now the posted blurb has been modified w/o consensus such that it no longer reflects what has been reported in virtually all reliable sources, is deeply disturbing and discouraging. When people complain about political bias on Wikipedia, this is the kind of crap they are talking about. Do what you will. This has become a POV clusterfuck and I am done with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reread some of the media reports, the Barr letter an a few other things and taking into account the above, and I am going to strongly suggest that this simply it put to Ongoing. It is clear that we are not yet presently going to be able to come up with a blurb that is concise and stays neutral that is accurate to the situation, and the next several days as Barr determines what to publish from it will be interesting. I also see something I even missed in the letter, is that this are his preliminary findings, meaning subject to change. So I think that with the report done and Barr reviewing, that makes this ongoing (in the same manner that Brexit is - both events are building up to something but we don't know what). That way, we are covering something that at this point is unescapably in the news and from a decent quality article, but avoid the minefield of trying to make a statement towards it on the main page when no one else can make one either. --M asem (t) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Altblurb IV / Ongoing / Pull I'm equally okay with all three courses of action, but the blurb as-is is too problematic. Per the comments above, altblurb IV is both the most concise and least misleading, but the details of the report are still to be announced. I'm starting to lean in favor of the recommendations by Sca and TRM that we hold off on a blurb until a consensus develops, and perhaps leave it in Ongoing until the public gets to know what's in the report. I have no issue posting that the 22 month long extravaganza has concluded (as altblurb IV does), but I do take issue with going solely off of Barr's summary of it, which is already being disputed by congress (now that the report has been given to congress). We cannot make the judgment call that Barr is right and Congress is wrong, and we cannot attribute Barr's words to Mueller as the other blurbs do. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I live in the US and so can’t speak to if this receiving international press covfefe coverage, but I will point out that for the sake of accuracy, there is no legal term called “collusion” (there is, but it means something different, as in Colin Kaepernick’s collusion lawsuit against the NFL). I would support a change to “conspiracy” (the name of the crime) or “coordination” (what Barr calls it in the summary). — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 15:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , whether or not this has international coverage isn't relevant per the "Please do not" section above on this page. I would not argue with changing the term to "coordination", but "collusion" is the most commonly used term. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the biggest fiasco I have witnessed in ITN Candidates in regards to interpretation. The Department of Justice has concluded and brought a summary to Congress and the American People. All of these distorted POV attempts to hijack and change the Current Blurb should be detested. Just because something is not formed in your image does not mean it is wrong or incorrect. These nominations must be neutral and impartial and that is what the Current Blurb possesses. We already know a bunch of people are at odds with Mueller's conclusions and what not. But this will not detract from the final judgement that the Department of Justice reached. Wikipedia is NOTACRYSTALBALL. Any attempt at second-guessing the findings is violating this WP and in violation of Biography of living persons. Aviartm (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Robert Mueller's conclusions. It has to do with failing to attribute the summary of the report to William Barr. There is an ongoing post-mortem to this investigation here that we need to account for, and we currently are not.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried earlier but I guess that was not applicable due to the information we were trying to reach a consensus.
 * The DOJ investigation is done, and the AG has provided a summary of his findings. I'm afraid that's how it is. When the house convenes new investigations, when those conclude, we can post them as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the obstruction part. That they failed to reach a conclusion is non-news. The rest of the blurb will necessarily be partisan, but it's passable. w umbolo   ^^^  16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The AG singled out two key findings in his letter to congress: collusion and obstruction. Include both, or neither, but do not cherry-pick. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, include both. It is the only proper thing to do in the first place. Aviartm (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea which news you are following but every news source I have read or listened to is heavily talking about the non-conclusion of obstruction of justice. That too should be included as it is in the news. Aviartm (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC).
 * Comment with alternative blurb offered - Looking at what is quite possibly the longest blurb in Wikipedia history. With that in mind I offer the following just-the-peg blurb (apparent limitation of four at top). A Special Counsel investigation finds no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia. CoatCheck (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment this really needs to be pulled until a factually accurate, NPOV blurb is agreed upon. Right now there's not even a consensus to post it at all, let alone in its current state.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be avoided by citing verbatim what the report states, without paraphrasing. Then the onus would lie solely on Barr, not on us. Brandmeistertalk  18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good job! Wording is as accurate as can be (until the day we all can read the report ourselves). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point many of the detractors seem to be missing: Barr is AG, it is his report and he can summarize the conclusions as he sees fit. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree! Exactly, it is only proper if we highlight the only 2 critical things of the report fairly. Aviartm (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with alternative blurb IV, otherwise pull the inaccurate blurb.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to explain why it is inaccurate, please explain. However, so far, no one that has objected the Current Blurb has any grounds as the Current Blurb contains both 2 focal points of the report best as possible. Trump IS exonerated of collusion with his Campaign, not with obstruction of justice. As clear as day and night. Aviartm (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the summary from Barr doesn't say "exonerated" it says no evidence, let's just use the AG wording and be done with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 6. I think we should stick as close to what the we know the Mueller report says, that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." FallingGravity 20:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Already says that. Here is the full quote: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Special Counsel did not find any link of the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia. Aviartm (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's using WP:OR to change "conspired or coordinated" into "colluded", which isn't a legal term, just a buzzword. FallingGravity 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need to play semantics when either of those words convey the message effectively. Since, "conspire" is a synonym to "collude". Aviartm (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should prioritize legal terms over buzzwords. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. FallingGravity 21:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Playing semantics in this regard I find counterproductive. The integrity of the message is not compromised to begin with. And if using "collusion" is such an issue, we better start taking on Donald Trump, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), Dismissal of James Comey, Trump-Russia Investigation, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, because these pages use collusion much more often than conspire(d) or coordinate(d). The importance that should matter is whether the message is getting articulated in a fashion of Neutral point of view and Reliable sources, which the Current Blurb does greatly. Aviartm (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many times these articles mention "collusion". What matters is that the official report says "conspired" and "coordinated", and it does not (as far as we know) say "collusion". This is backed up by multiple WP:RS. FallingGravity 22:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * REPEAT there is currently scant consensus to even post this at all, let alone in its current state. Please, this isn't Brexit, remove the story until a consensus can form around what to post and whether to actually post it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been 13 Supports in any fashion of the ITN being posted and only 4 Opposed. Even include the 3 Pulls and that is only 7. Essentially twice as many people support it being posted. Please stop FILIBUSTER. Aviartm (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM, I am sincerely having a hard time understanding what "Please, this isn't Brexit..." is supposed to mean.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It means that just because someone posted it, it doesn't mean we have to go through with it, no matter how stupid it is. It's highly embarrassing that this blurb has been allowed to stand during all these adjustments, and despite there being no clear consensus for any proposed blurb.  And that's not filibustering, obviously, because the item has already been posted.  Please.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as is. Wording is accurate and neutral, story is very significant. Nice4What (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support current version. The wording works and it is a significant story in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I want to simply reaffirm my continued support for this blurb. In most cases, prosecutorial declinations are not ITN-worthy. This is not the case here. This is a major international story drawing comments and responses from leaders in several regions of the world. The current blurb is a neutral summary of the consensus among the overwhelming majority of the RS. Everything else reeks of IDONTLIKEIT. This issue has been raised and consider by many admins, here and at ERRORS. Their inaction could be interpreted as Silence and consensus. I ask anyone reading this to add their Support/Oppose !votes to close this discussion so we can move on.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Coffeeandcrumbs) Thank you Coffee for your position on the matter. I agree with you 100%. Ad Orientem was the first to discuss about IDONTLIKEIT and it drove him to leave the conversation, which I think should not happen. The Current Blurb is the best one in accordance to current news and the conclusion synopsis by the DOJ. If this is what the DOJ finds and concludes, then that is what we will publish here like we did. I Support closing the discussion. This circus has gone long enough. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a minor change to the wording in response to main-page errors but am in no way qualified to judge the wider issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have stricken my support, as I no longer feel the current blurb captures the situation without bias, after reading the opinion expressed by an editor above that the current blurb is neutral and impartial while the other suggestions are not. This is clearly incorrect; the current blurb asserts that Barr's summary accurately represents Mueller's findings, while blurb 4 makes no such assertion. Therefore, I support one of three things:
 * 1. Adding an attribution (e.g., "according to U.S. Attorney General William Barr") to the current blurb
 * 2. Alt blurb 4
 * 3. Ongoing
 * Of these three, I prefer alt blurb 4. Apologies for clarifying my support so late; I initially added my support when the pertinent question was whether the story is significant enough, not which blurb to use. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Davey2116}} Sounds like you are talking about me and that's alright. The Current Blurb is neutral and impartial because the Current Blurb is entirely dependent on the findings of the DOJ. How is this bias? Can you please explain how using the official government's conclusions for the Current Blurb is bias? Because it would be nefarious to come up with our own conclusions to fit some narrative that we think the DOJ got wrong. It is not Wikipedia nor its participants space to conclude what the Department of Justice concludes. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I already did. The current blurb is asserting that Barr is accurately representing Mueller's findings. Alt blurb 4 is not making any determination on whether Barr is or is not, and neither does the article. Many RS do not state definitively that Barr is accurately representing Mueller. So I think we should go with alt blurb 4, or add an attribution to Barr to the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Davey2116}} To clear up the confusion for you, this is what the letter says. If the Department of Justice, which the Special Counsel is/was part of, finds that Trump did not collude with Russia (As it states here: The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities...the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." <- This is Barr's words and Mueller's words on the matter. On Obstruction of Justice, " After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction...The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime...Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." If the Attorney General concludes on these matters, then these are the matters in which we should put into ITN, which we did. Aviartm (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I oppose closing this discussion. By my count there are at least twelve !votes against the current blurb, and a similar number in favor; no consensus either way. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there are 14+ Support votes in favor of the uploading of the Blurb. There are only 5 Oppose votes. Add the Pulls, that makes it 8 total votes that in some way oppose the Nomination. I have already rehashed this detail earlier with my conversation with The Rambling Man. Soooo many IDONTLIKEIT and FILIBUSTER violations to contort the truth. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you count again. I've counted three times and I see 10 supports for the current blurb, and 12 opposing it (either supporting alt blurb 4 or ongoing). I don't see how this is IDONTLIKEIT or FILIBUSTER. I simply want an accurate blurb posted, with consensus, neither of which is demonstrated by the current blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will do it a third time. I counted 14 Supports and 5 Opposes. Aviartm (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 5? You must have left out all conditional votes where the condition has not been met, pulls, ongoings, etc. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. For the record, I'm leaning altblurb4 / ongoing, but I don't feel too strongly about either way anymore. If the lead on that article summarized the results in an actually concise way, I don't think anyone would have a problem with altblurb4. But here is what I counted: Unambiguous Support: 7, Conditional Support (opposing specific blurbs / supporting only specific blurbs / some mix of specific blurbs / ongoing / pull): 8, Ongoing: 3, Oppose: 5. -- Ununseti (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Too many altblurbs! -- Ununseti (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Ununseti}} Thank you for your inquiry. The Current Blurb suffices the current public knowings of the special counsel's findings. Since we already have Reliable sources and NPOV, as the Current Blurb is 100% dependent on the four-page letter sent to Congress yesterday, the Current Blurb suffices. Every news outlet has reported the facts in the Current Blurb. Aviartm (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on my initial impressions, when I first saw this blurb earlier today, it just seemed hilariously long. 'America-centric much?' I thought. But I've been staring at this for too long and I just have no idea how long sentences are supposed to be anymore... I still would prefer a change to altblurb4, but I'm neutral about the current blurb now (which I note isn't actually any of the like 7 currently proposed altblurbs). I don't contest its correctness or neutrality, I just thought it seemed like a bit much to stuff into a blurb. But I think it's gotten slightly shorter since I last looked at it this morning. Or I'm just hallucinating. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Ununseti}} Thank you for clarifying. It is long for a ITN item. The longest I have actually ever seen one. And about it becoming "shorter" I think it did. If you click here, to the ERRORS discussion about the Current Blurb, appears that one of the mods made a slight adjustment but I too am not totally for sure. Would have to check the History edits to see for sure. Check between when Stephen posted and see if there was a slight adjustment. I think the Current Blurb is fine as it encapsulates the 2 most important details of the synopsis: no collusion was found and a non-conclusion on obstruction of justice. Aviartm (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The !votes against the blurb as-is do seem to be the majority. Though Wikipedia is not a vote, and polling is not a substitute for discussion, I don't think there's a consensus for the blurb. This is the longest thread I've seen on ITN since the McCain death, and that discussion had a 2:1 support:oppose ratio. As it becomes increasingly unlikely that we'll reach a consensus on which altblurb to use, or whether or not to post a blurb at all, and certainly no consensus for the specific blurb that's currently posted, I think it's time to pull and close. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|BrendonTheWizard}} There are a lot of Supports but for other Blurbs but I counted at least 9 Supports for the Current Blurb. And there is only 4 Opposes. I think since there is so many Supports for slight variants of the Blurb, I think the Current Blurb will stand. I do also agree that it will be difficult to achieve a "definite" consensus but I think the time for that has passed so the Current Blurb won't be changed most likely. Aviartm (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only 4 opposes? What? How did you come up with an even smaller number than the last time you counted? You're not counting pulls (which advocate taking it off), ongoings (which advocate taking it off and listing it as ongoing instead), altblurb requests (which advocate replacing the blurb with a better one), etc. Let's see where individuals stand so we don't accidentally count any !votes twice or forget anyone (which I probably did):  Support Altblurb2 (current): 1. Ad Orientem 2. Aviartm 3. Capitalistroadster 4. SusanLesch 5. Nice4What 6. ZettaComposer 7. Hrodvarsson  Ongoing: 1. Davey2116 2. Muboshgu 3. Sca 4. Ununseti  Oppose: 1. Masem 2. Juxlos 3. Nilhus  Pull: 1. GreatCaesarsGhost, 2. TheRamblingMan, 3. WaitClip, 4. (myself)  Modify or replace the blurb: 1. Laserlegs 2. Wumbolo 3. Falling Gravity 4. Gamaliel Total in favor of leaving it as-is: 7, Total in favor of removing the blurb: 11, Total against the as-is version: 15 At the very least, someone ought to replace the blurb immediately, barely anyone still supports the current state, but the opposition to it being on the page at all is still overwhelming. It should be pulled and this discussion should be closed so we can move on. A consensus has not developed to post.  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 03:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the current and altblurb4. Also there is a simultaneous discussion occurring at WP:ERRORS. A numbers game is not going to solve this.--- Coffee  and crumbs  04:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support A conclusion to a long-running and high-profile investigation. Headline news. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouldn't this say {{xt|…allegations of obstruction of justice}} instead of {{!xt|allegations of obstructed justice}}? —Hugh (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Hl}} That would work but the Current Blurb conveys the best. And people are already griping and questioning the Current Blurb's length. So I think it is best to keep the Current Blurb the way it is but I would have no issue if it got changed for this slight modification. Aviartm (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: WaPo has an article on Barr's letter that's of interest to this discussion. The article notes that "collusion" is a meaningless term from a legal perspective, which is why the letter mentioned conspiracy and coordination. Also:
 * {{tq|When a prosecutor says “the investigation did not establish” an offense, that is not to say the crime wasn’t committed or that there was not evidence supporting it. It means that there was not sufficient proof of conspiracy or coordination to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.}}
 * Based on this article I think we should change the poorly crafted Current Blurb wording to some variation "establish conspiracy" or "establish conspiracy or coordination", which is less ambiguous than the current "find collusion". FallingGravity 04:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment still no consensus for this blurb. Getting beyond stupid now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pulled for lack of consensus. Looking at the conversation above, there is too much opposition to having this in ITN at the moment. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Repost I don't see good reasons to oppose this. One could argue that the blurb is inaccurate, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean this should be pulled. In the meantime the oppose reasons seem mostly to be based on "we can't trust these conclusions" which comes down to personal opinion. I'd point out that a decade ago, there was another group of people who said "we can't trust Barrack Obama's birth certificate, give us the full version!" which sounds disturbingly similar. Absent strong reasons to believe otherwise, one must believe what's in authoritative sources, and while it's conceivable that Barr's summary isn't a fair summary, it's still what we've got. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Barr had expressed opposition to the investigation before being given the Attorney General job, that is plenty of reason to not accept his conclusions about the investigation at face value, without seeing the report itself. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Repost consensus to post was obvious, this is IDONTLIKEIT writ large. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Endorse the pull. I don't see a consensus one way or the other as of right now. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this is always the problem when we've got a big news story, but full information isn't in the public domain. There's obviously consensus to post something here, but perhaps it simply needs to be very neutral, i.e. that Barr has sent the report to Congress, without the semantics on what it actually says - until things are clearer. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Repost. This story will always be contested, but it is without a doubt major news and the blurb was the most neutral wording. I hope to see this story back on ITN. Nice4What (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Repost. Major news story. There was consensus to post at the time of first posting. 4 opposes by one person (TRM, no offense intended) shouldn't govern this decision. Alt blurb 4 is easy and less controversial. There's no future event on the horizon when posting would make more sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Repost with Altblurb 4 per SusanLesch and Hrodvarsson. I know getting the exact wording is problematic, but it belongs on the main page in one form or another, even if it's just "Robert Mueller submits his report to the Justice Dept"  p  b  p  14:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose reposting until a clear consensus on an factually accurate and NPOV blurb has been achieved. Can't believe it took this long to remove given the clear and obvious lack of consensus. Systemic bias at its finest. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've made 3-4 bold bulleted comments in the past couple of days. We get it.  You were warned yesterday about trying to talk this to death.  Consider yourself warned again.  p  b  p  15:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid, as always, your warning carries precisely zero weight with me. Good luck!  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment With all due respect the fact that those who supported posting wish to repost doesn't change whether or not there was consensus from the discussion. There are far too many question marks raised above, including amongst ITN regulars, for this to have stayed posted. I've often said that ITN doesn't have robust enough criteria for assessing particular stories, and it's something I'd like to see improved, but that's the way it is. Even items that feature in all the newspapers around the world sometimes don't make it due to not satisfying the encyclopedic requirements. If a number of new voices come in with firm support for reposting or those in dispute can coalesce around a particular way forward then it can be reposted, but for now this has probably run its course. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Amateurish, dilettantish, unprofessional and embarrassing. Our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty irrelevance. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: At more than 8,000 words, this brouhaha may be a new record for ITN/C blather. – Sca (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}}
 * Repost the original. Several of the original Oppose votes were weak at best. Not trusting the DOJ's conclusions, House Democrats still investigating that somehow "contests" the DOJ's findings and somehow impedes us from posting what the DOJ found?, among other things. And the Pulls reeked of IDONTLIKEIT.
 * So, I think what is best is to go back to the original posted Blurb and if anyone has a gripe about it, post below as normal and go from there.
 * "The U.S. Special Counsel investigation, headed by Robert Mueller (pictured), does not find collusion between President Donald Trump's election campaign and Russian election interference, and does not reach a conclusion regarding allegations of obstructed justice." Aviartm (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I endorse the pull (though I think all of these endorse vs repost comments, including this one I am posting, are redundancies of our original !votes and do not affect the consensus). I truly mean no ill will towards any of the users that wanted this posted; I just don't think that ITN has a chance at agreeing on whether to post the original, post the concise altblurb IV, move it to Ongoing instead of posting a blurb at all, not post a blurb at all, etc. I support the pull not because I think the story lacks significance (it doesn't), and not because I think the article is in too bad of a shape (it isn't), but because I don't believe there is (or will be) any solid consensus for any option. Even if we were to repost as Altblurb IV, which I personally endorsed, I foresee still many objections both from the users that prefer the original and users that preferred to post to ongoing. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * REPEAT There was strong, obvious consensus to post this item with the blurb, and no consensus for a changed blurb. That in no way justifies a pull. This should be returned to the main page immediately. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I read this whole exchange, plus the one at ERRORS and there's clearly no obvious consensus on a blurb yet, and borderline consensus on the thing being posted in the first place. We shouldn't be using the main page as a sandbox where we keep tinkering with an obese blurb that has little agreement.  Do that here, get a consensus for the blurb, then by all means opt for re-posting.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was consensus at the time it was posted, and disagreement since then on the wording of the blurb but I don't see how that equates to a pull. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's straightforward enough - the blurb that was posted has had vehement disagreement over the wording, both in terms of fact and POV, so until that gets resolved, it should remain off the main page. In the meantime, plenty of others have opined that they don't even really deem the story to be of real significance.  Either way, or both ways, like Brexit, consensus has changed, but unlike Brexit, we don't have to plough on with dubious material on the mainpage.  We can pull it, discuss it, gather a consensus on a blurb, and then re-post it.  Simples (as Terry May would say).  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * At the time, the Oppose votes were about inconsequential things to the Special Counsel's findings. There were legitimate objections but the contemporary Support votes outweighed those that opposed, that is why it was posted in the first place. Then as time went on as the Blurb was up, the Pulls and Opposes were heavily violating IDONTLIKEIT with little groundings of legitimate concern, aggregately. Then Supports for the Current Blurb at the time came in from some people. Then some people voted Pull for "lack of consensus", yet some Admin or Admins concluded that there was enough consensus for it to be posted. So where we are now is because changes were not made to please the IDONTLIKEIT people and then other people found that since no changes, or very few came to fruition, they objected for a pull. This is the current state of affairs. Even after my comment about starting over with the previously posted Blurb, not a single person has said anything about it whether it is wrong or not. This inaction alone can be interpreted as that the Blurb was fine to begin with. If we want to reach a consensus with the people participating, the Blurb needs to be changed or we will be going back to Step 3 of "no clear consensus reached due to no substantial changes done to please the IDONTLIKEIT people." Aviartm (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We are where we are. You need to get a consensus to post a factual and NPOV blurb.  Sorry if you don't like the way it's gone, but that's life.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not saying what is needed is bad or flawed, it should be that way. But the amount of IDONTLIKEIT which caused others to conclude that since changes were not happening, "no consensus" is just a bad way. There was more griping than consensing either way you voted. Aviartm (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

{{ec}}
 * Close and replace the blurb with a poor quality article about European copyright law. The consensus was established, has been summarized time and again, and doesn't matter. We all know this one won't be going back up. May it rest in peace. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It might go back up if people proposed a blurb and sought consensus for it. Your (once again) pointed comment is unhelpful, the consensus to post the original blurb may have existed, but times changed that and it was deemed unsuitable.  I'm sorry you are so sad about it.  If it was me, I'd look to find a new blurb if I cared as much as you seem to do. But yes, if no-one is prepared to do that, close it out as a non-event.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM, it's been discussed to death, everyone who wanted to pitch a blurb (I've suggested one, it went nowhere) has done so, it's finished. Disagreement over a blurb is grounds to pull, so that's a known feature now. This is a sincere suggestion to just close this and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was nothing wrong or notably POV in:
 * "The Special Counsel investigation does not find collusion between President Donald Trump's election campaign and Russian election interference, and does not reach a conclusion regarding allegations of obstructed justice."
 * Thus, there was no egregious error or slant that warranted pulling this sober, even-handed blurb. Nice going, guys. – Sca (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Sca}}I know, right? Aviartm (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Before we close, we should acknowledge that no option gained a consensus here because there were too many options to choose from: the posted blurb, alt blurb 4, some other blurb, ongoing, and not posting. (For instance, I am fine with the middle three options myself.) So, inspired by the Brexit indicative votes, I suggest that we let folks !vote again by approval (i.e., people list all options they approve of) and act on the option, if any, which is approved of by a consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Davey2116}} I proposed to kickstart conversations by using the Blurb that was posted and not a single person responded to my request. So if you want to continue, you will see my message about it. Aviartm (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should we consider only the posted blurb and not all the options? If we just repeat the !votes on the posted blurb, we're not going to have a consensus to post it. I would like to see something posted. Davey2116 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Question Is it possible to restart this discussion with the new proposed blurb? Please? The decision to pull is a great disservice to the people who for two years maintained excellent articles on Mueller's investigation and the Russian intrusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible if it reaches all of the requirements. Aviartm (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reposted, using altblurb number four, because I believe it adequately summarizes the main point - it's over - and eliminates the need to succinctly and impartially present the results of the report, which requires a level of nuance that is hard to achieve in blurb format. I trust this makes everyone happy, and we can put this matter to rest. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As so many people complained earlier and probably will too now, no consensus was reached for this Blurb to be posted. And the Blurb was that originally posted cover the two concluding findings of the report best we could. Aviartm (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The current blurb shouldn't be set in stone. It can be hard to find agreement when there are a lot of blurb options, and personally I don't think I had an issue with the version that was pulled. But simple works too, sometimes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course but we should include the 2 simple details that was concluded in the report. It is not that hard but I do agree the time for that has passed... Aviartm (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment thank you {{U|Bongwarrior}} for some common sense here. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|The Rambling Man}} Just saying but you were one of the largest proponents of "no consensus reached". Aviartm (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saying?? Seriously.  If I need to repeat myself a sixth time, no consensus for the blurb that was posted, barely a consensus for it to posted at all.  I asked for a NPOV factual blurb, and that's what we have.  Just saying.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the Admins, there was a consensus, that is why it was posted to begin with. Yes, the Current Blurb is a NPOV factual Blurb but so was the one originally posted. Aviartm (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, whatever you say. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A perfectly reasonable compromise has been reached.There is no reason to rehash these arguments and vent your frustrations with the process. Administrators post and pull according to consensus; there was no shortage of objections after the initial posting, and the user that pulled it from the main page was also an administrator. That's in the past now; this story is back on the main page, albeit with a more concise and less disputed blurb. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate that Altblurb IV was the selected blurb when reposting. As it was the most popular of the proposed replacement blurbs, this is a perfectly reasonable compromise between having a blurb & not having the previous one. This altblurb contains nothing that could conceivably be viewed as problematic. I think we can finally put to rest what may have been a record for the most heavily discussed ITN blurb, and all peacefully move on to other stories. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This compromise solution is agreeable to the vast majority here; it posts something (thus giving a link to an excellent article on the investigation), while avoiding the NPOV concerns raised by many here. Thank you to Bongwarrior, and all involved; hopefully we can get it done in fewer than 10,000 words next time. Davey2116 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Great fact too. Had to check myself! Bonkers! Aviartm (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment No issues here with the reposted blurb. The original one was a bit long after some more thought. ZettaComposer (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Excellent short and informative blurb. If there are further updates to Trump–Russia e.g. in Congress, that can be posted as well. w umbolo   ^^^  11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}
 * Post-posting Comment – I object to whoever oversimplified my original Alt1, which I have reinstated above for the record. Proposed blurbs should not be unilaterally modified except in collaboration with the blurb's author. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) March 2019 attacks against Fulani herders

 * Support - I actually planned to nominate it myself. This is a big massacre so should be notable enough. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb. The article is still pretty short, but it's over the stub-line and well referenced.  I prefer the altblurb because the first suggestion implies something the article does not say.  The article says only that local officials have placed the blame on the Dogon hunters, not that they were the ones who carried out the attack.  The altblurb is less problematic because there's nothing there which could be in dispute.  There are 160 people that were killed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rafi Eitan

 * Oppose - Several paragraphs with a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, some large paragraphs need to be broken and clearly have citations as there are exceptional claims and the article is still under BLP policy. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - why nominate an article nowhere near ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I nominate articles like this one to draw attention to it in the hopes that it is repaired faster. This has worked several times in the past. Davey2116 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Victor Hochhauser

 * COMMENT – Article is quite stubby. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Currently a poorly referenced stub. The bit I checked was not covered by the source given. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose basically a stub, what's there is fine, but it doesn't feel enough to justify the "Britain's foremost independent promoters of classical music and ballet" tag given the lack of detail in the article... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) MV Viking Sky

 * Oppose The engines stalled and while there was a potential threat of it running into some rocks, they have it at stablized. It is not sinking or in danger of that, but its also not going anywhere fast for a while. Evacuating a stalled ship is not ITN worthy. (Add that there is no update on the target article). --M asem (t) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Evacuation continuing all night, article is updated to state this. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment – AP, Reuters describe evacuation of some passengers, of whom there are more than 1,000, by helicopter in stormy weather. Seems quite dramatic. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The precautionary evacuation of a ship at sea is not really something that warrants a blurb. Yes, there are some maritime incidents that should, or would have, merited attention from ITN. But not this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support the disabling and evacuation of a modern ship with 1300 PAX on it isn't exactly routine -- CCL Triumph was stranded at sea 5 or 6 years ago I don't know if there was another one since. The operator has 11 more orders of identical hulls being built by Fincantieri. Y'all let me know how this is somehow more routine than people being killed by tropical storms in under-developed tropical countries. Outside the incident, the article is really thin, some could be ported from MV Viking Star since they're identical hulls (or really a spinoff article is needed for the class). All-in an interesting and dramatic story. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Developing. Potentially a top int'l. story. Sca (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is good news for the passengers evacuated but doesn't cut the mustard as an ITN story. If a major ocean liner sank, that would be an ITN story providing the article was up to scratch. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It looks to me like the blurb could ultimately say "Ship doesn't sink. Nobody hurt". HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like some passengers were injured by furniture and debris due to the rough waves, and about 300 have been evacuated by helicopter. The rest are just sat there waiting for another boat. Not sure where I stand, but it's certainly big in the news. Kingsif (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose might make a suitable quirky story for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Withdraw support – All the opposes notwithstanding, this is still the No. 1 story, and for good reason: A 47,000-ton cruise ship with nearly 1,000 people still on board is under tow in stormy seas. It may all end well, but still we can't ignore this high drama. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Now arrived safely in port. Boat will be repaired, everyone fine. Drama but also Oppose this isn't a major impact on anything. Oh no, there was a really bad storm but everything is fine. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a whale of a story while it lasted. – Sca (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Battle of Baghuz Fawqani

 * Support - I think this is pretty conclusive. WaltCip (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Unlike Waltcip above, I don't think this is pretty conclusive, since IS has already largely transformed itself into a guerrilla force quite some time ago, and will probably be around as such for quite some time to come. But it does mark at least the symbolic end of one particular phase of the conflict, and, incidentally, also seems likely to have some practical consequences, especially on the coalition side (possible withdrawal of at least some Western troops, possible reanimation of conflicts involving Kurds, Shias, Syrians, Turks, Russians, etc), even if it would be WP:CRYSTAL to try to predict precisely what those consequences might be (tho it would also be WP:CRYSTAL to oppose it on the basis of some claim that it is unlikely to have any significant consequences, which is why I'm mentioning some such possible consequences here). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The ISIL's defeat in Syria was recently announced by the US, as I remember. Brandmeistertalk  19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support clearly newsworthy and important. Very good article quality and comprehensiveness, and properly updated. The battle wasn't in Ongoing for nothing – ISIS is gone 🦀 🇸🇾. w umbolo   ^^^  20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Clearly notable, and article is of excellent quality. Davey2116 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question is it "over"? Has ISIL surrendered and accepted defeat? A peace treaty signed? Unicorns and flowers blooming in Syria? We're not going to have another "very important final battle against ISIL in Syria" in some other bombed out city stuck in the box for a month? Trump announced ISIL is 100% defeated in Syria but that guy isn't exactly trustworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you opposing, ? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm asking a question, is this really done? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Declared done by the SDF and the coalition. Nice4What (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ambivalent re blurb, but totally oppose both alternative blurbs.There were 30 countries involved, not just "The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S., France and the UK,.... ". Moriori (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is long and well referenced, but irrelevant factoids like "One YPG commander stated that some desperate ISIL militants would resort to wearing women's clothing when fleeing." or "civilian truck drivers said 18 foreigners were among the dozens of civilians fleeing with them" but that doesn't really matter. The good news is we'll never post another ISIL bombing or shooting in Syria because this is 'the decisive, "final battle" against the Islamic State'. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whose law is it that says you need a smiley to let people know you're being ironic online? The alternative possibility that you have just mindlessly swallowed some piece of fake news just seems too ghastly to contemplate Tlhslobus (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb According to this Al Jazeera segment with a discussion among regional scholars, this does indeed mean the end of ISIL as a territorial entity even if it may not mean the end of the organization's ideology and existence online.--- Coffee  and crumbs  01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We usually do not post maps per In the news.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are tired of the former dictator president, may I suggest a photo of Karen Uhlenbeck who never got her true day in the sun.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Replaced with an SDF fighter. Sad we didn't get to feature her, but at this point she's the last item on the list and it's a bit too late for that. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The blurb is misleading. ISIL lost all of their territory as a result of defeats inflicted by the Russia-led and the US-led forces separately. The fact that the final defeat was in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani does not credit only the US-led forces for the overall victory, which is unfortunately indicated in the current wording of the posted blurb. So, either the blurb will focus on the defeat in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani, which is not even mentioned explicitly, and only consequentially mention ISIL's ultimate defeat or the part with the allied belligerents will be removed to make the blurb clear and neutral. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Misleading? Is this a joke..? Simply change it to "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat at Baghuz Fawqani by the Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led coalition." if it's that much of an issue. Rather do that than list every belligerent who has fought against ISIL. Nice4What (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an issue and I proposed two solutions. I'm not an administrator to make the change myself.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Translated into a better blurb, I prefer a simple one like "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant lose all of their territory in Syria following their defeat in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani.".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot bold link to an article not vetted by this project.--- Coffee  and crumbs  16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Frans Andriessen

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Special Counsel investigation

 * Oppose simply, in one word...: so? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's concluded but we have no idea what it says and what actions will happen. I would think that when the report's conclusions are given out, that's a blurb, but not the mere conclusion. --M asem (t) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the results are disclosed, which could happen within the next few days. Spengouli (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Significance is unclear. This nomination, while expected, is premature. I suggest withdrawing pending developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait What are the results? Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing as it has been for two years, getting regular updates and certainly "in the news" lets just pop this down into ongoing like another zombie link that'll never come out. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, too pointy that. There are no other "zombie link"s which will never come out.  This, on the other hand, may have no more detail ever to be released.  So it's utterly pointless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no details yet, wait. --Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The details are here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten to put a after your comment.  Tlhslobus (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The details are here. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait The Attorney General is reportedly expected to release a summary for Congressional leaders over the weekend or early next week, which is then reportedly expected to promptly become public knowledge, so we can probably wait until then (on the other hand much of the detail may never be released). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Seems like more details are to come over the weekend, and this is definitely the leading story on most RS so it's definitely already getting the requisite coverage for ITN. I wouldn't oppose putting this in ongoing now, but I think we should wait. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The longest headline seen on ITN. Yup just wanted to say that. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb made assumption that everyone is aware of or following the now concluded investigation. Also it's said to be concluded, but we don't know what is in the conclusion or what will happen after the 'conclusion'. – Ammarpad (talk)
 * Oppose – In the U.S. speculation is rife over the contents of the report, but until it's released its delivery to the attorney general is of scant import. Sca (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Perhaps when there is something to report instead of "something done". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.161.250 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal Brexit negotiations

 * Oppose there will need to be votes in the House of Commons imminently to agree to May's deal in order to secure any extension. This is live news and ongoing, and there seems to be absolutely no good reason at all to remove it from Ongoing as it impacts hundreds of millions of people, just not in the US directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Commons has to vote on it before April 12 so this is "ongoing" while May fakes her vote twice and loses again? Brexit impacts the UK, the EU and the entire world .. but it's going dark until MV3 (or lack thereof) finally sets a Brexit date. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that vote will take place next week, so it's hardly "going dark". Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we just leaving this in until it happens, or it's postponed indefinitely? If so, fine, I'll stop asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be plenty of time to revisit that question soon, but now is definitely the wrong time.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll drop it. FWIW I want to see this as blurbs, not buried as ongoing. I'm not challenging the significance of this item in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem with that, but if you want a blurb then nominate one.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This scenario is precisely what Ongoing is all about. The next blurb should be when we finally do leave (or Article 50 is revoked).  Until then, everything else is fundamentally incremental yet of high significance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Next week is probably the most important week in this whole complete and utter shambles process. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Are the world's currency speculators giddy with excitement? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – It ain't over 'til it's over. – Sca (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This saga has become too long to still be in our News. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "our News"? Are you suggesting this is unworthy of ITN for some editorial reason? I don't understand your comment. WaltCip (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am suggesting that. In reality, nothing new is happening. Just a stalemate in a country's parliament. There are many of those around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose until March 29, then revisit. It should remain as long as there is a nonzero chance of crashing out. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Point of information: Are we talking "nonzero" Celsius, Fahrenheit or Kelvin? – Sca (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the page is undergoing significant updates and is still in the news. I would even support a blurb about today's Brexit protests if someone created the page.---  Coffee  and crumbs  17:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People's Vote march, 2019. Looks like someone did it.--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Time to Close? (per WP:SNOW and/or no realistic chance of reaching a consensus for removal). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion

 * Oppose at the moment. Article is a stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Improve highly significant, but not ready to post just yet. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending article expansion. AFP puts death toll at 67. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, after expansion. --Leiem (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I have expanded this a little and I think it now meets the minimum. The death toll is likely to go up with 28 still missing and some of the critically injured expected to die. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support — article has been expanded (more content, sources, subheadings) and is now more appropriate for ITN. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a major industrial accident and mass casualty event. Article is still a bit thin but it is not a stub and appears adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal Cyclone Idai

 * Support removal. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * May I ask why? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. We actually just bumped it to ongoing. This is a currently unfolding humanitarian disaster, likely the deadliest cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere within historical memory. Beira, a large city of more than half a million, has been 90% damaged or destroyed according to IFRC. Some areas have yet to be reached by rescue operations. Over 200 people in Zimbabwe are still missing. This is comparable to the 2000 Mozambique flood, which made international headlines and whose scale remained unknown for weeks. Despite being semi-protected, the article is receiving constant updates, having been edited 30+ time since the last 24 hours. 67.69.69.63 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why a storm that was already a remnant low got put into the box in the first place, but the storm is over. The impact of Hurricane Maria is still ongoing. Time to move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Maria was only edited 4 times in the past week. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * CA, you're making the same mistake I made opposing the nom (see below).  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Still undergoing significant updates. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The storm is over --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." Italics as found at WP:ITN.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Still receiving significant updates and still in the news internationally. (A fresh item was on the BBC index page when I got in this evening, despite the Brexit fever we're all suffering over here.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The body count is still going up. It has been steadily increasing by about 35-75 per day. Not to mention disease outbreaks of chlorea, dysentary, and malaria are starting. I hardly consider that as over. This has been a major news headline and still continues to be. The article is being updated frequently as well. I see no reason to remove this yet. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Re comparison with Maria: Difference here is that direct effects are still ongoing with floodwaters encompassing hundreds of square miles of land including a city of 200,000 people (readily visible from space). As mentioned by Coffeeandcrumbs, it still meets criteria for WP:ITN ongoing with regular article updates and global news headlines. Would be fine with this being removed once the flooding subsides or if it falls out of major headlines. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Compare this with this.--- Coffee  and crumbs  05:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Cofer (linebacker)

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Kazakhstan capital renamed

 * Question: Should this be a separate nom, or an amendment to the already posted blurb about his resignation (and if the latter, where should it be discussed, given that its omission is not technically an error, and may thus not be accepted at WP:ERRORS)? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is trivial. The renaming of cities is a usual procedure in many countries following the end of a political era and this is not an exception. Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment To everyone commenting how this city has changed names many times before, you do realize they were literally all from when the Russians/Soviets ruled the area, Almaty was the Kazakh capital, and the land that is today the capital was then totally undeveloped, right? The only other time that Astana's name, as the capital of the independent country, changed its name was when "Astana" was established to begin with. Let's put a stop to this flood of uninformed comments. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And you do realise that most of the people commenting here know considerably more about the topic than you and are actually aware that Tselinograd was a major showpiece Soviet city (I still remember being bussed around by an unnervingly enthusiastic Intourist guide), not "totally undeveloped", and that if you don't know the most basic facts about the place you're probably not best placed to accuse others of making "uninformed comments"? &#8209; Iridescent 12:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the city's iconic landmarks were nonexistent; Kazakhstan rapidly developed the area in the process of building a new capital city. More importantly, Tselinograd was neither the capital nor renamed by Kazakhstan itself. Kazakhstan wasn't even a country in 1961. The comments here make it sound like they just can't stop renaming the capital, but in reality it was only recently that it even became a capital and only recently did Kazakhstan have the ability to call the shots. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 13:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point is well and truly missed, this isn't really about the status of the city, it's more about the continual name-changing, which isn't commonplace with London or Paris etc. If London had changed its name as frequently as Astana then I guarantee most of us would be voting against it.  Just as we are voting against this trivial change.  P.S. your signature is a real overhead.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trans.: Over the top – ?? – Sca (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kiril. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As Kiril says, this is trivial; particular in post-Soviet states, towns, cities and other administrative districts are renamed all the time, and Akmoly/Akmolinsk/Tselinograd/Akmola/Astana/Nursultan is a particularly extreme example. (Plus, it doesn't take an extreme amount of crystal-ballgazing to guess that in a fairly short time Nursultan's dictatorship will be reappraised and the name will be changed yet again.) &#8209; Iridescent 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The reason why it was renamed was because Nursultan isn't president anymore. To say that "in a fairly short time" the dictatorship will be overthrown entirely is very, very much WP:CRYSTALballing. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support on importance - how often are national capitals renamed? Not very often. But oppose based on the article quality, too many unsourced sections. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "How often are national capitals renamed?" Apparently, if you check the article of the city in question, it's been renamed at least three or four times within the past 100 years. So for this particular city, quite often.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the dates on when the city was renamed. The city was neither 1) a capital city 2) developed land nor 3) in an independent country. Just because the Soviets couldn't stop playing with the name doesn't mean this is unimportant. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Renaming a capital city is exactly the notable information an encyclopedia should put on its front page doktorb wordsdeeds 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Renaming this particular capital city is not notable due to the underlying circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Just because the Soviets couldn't figure out what to call it doesn't mean that it's unimportant when a sovereign state changes the capital city's name. It's the capital city of a sovereign country, and note that this is the  only time  that Astana as the capital of independent Kazakhstan was renamed, with the only exception being the establishment of "Astana" as "Astana." Note that the capital used to be Almaty before Astana was built by the independent Kazakhstan. Before the city 90s when the country was sovereign, this area was very undeveloped. If we were talking about any well-known country's capital, whether Washington or Tokyo or London or Beijing, I guarantee that there would be unanimous support.  Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 12:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality. Tags added. Even with refs, Geography, Economy and Demographics woefully undersized. Update is a single sentence. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on both quality and importance. Name changes are not uncommon, it's not ITN worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it was an entirely different set of circumstances, we have posted locations being renamed on ITN, such as here: In_the_news/Candidates/February_2019 and In_the_news/Candidates/August_2015 (Mount McKinley renaming).  Spencer T• C 15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per BrendonTheWizard, when article is in shape. Notable story. Most of the !opposes aren't really convincing. Davey2116 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per BrendonTheWizard and Spencer, in particular stressing this is the only renaming since the move of the capital from Almaty in the 1990s. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that I haven't made any comments in support or in opposition to the nomination; was just noting information about previous items on ITN above. Best,  Spencer T• C 21:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, per BrendonTheWizard among others (I'll leave others to judge quality). This is the only time in my lifetime of over 60 years that I can remember being aware of a country renaming its existing capital, tho I suspect there may be other instances of which I was unaware at the time (or have since forgotten), tho I'd have to check (if I knew how to do that). Note that I'm not talking about naming of new capitals (such as Brasilia, Islamabad, perhaps Astana itself) nor of just changing the English translation of an unchanged non-English capital (such as from Peking to Beijing, and possibly from Rangoon to Yangon - tho our article seems ambiguous about its local name in that instance). But even if I'm unaware of some such changes, I'd expect they're pretty rare (and also changes, if any, in tiny states would be less significant than changes in a mid-size state like Kazakhstan). Incidentally, even if quality were to remain an issue, there would still be a case for adding the name-change (presumably without bolding) to our existing blurb about Nursultan Nazarbayev's retirement. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Should all Support !votes (such as mine) be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by posting an item about it, or should all Oppose !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by censoring this instance of Kazakhs behaving ridiculously some Kazakhs seemingly behaving ridiculously, at least in my foolish eyes, until I noticed non-Kazakh behaviour in places like Mount Rushmore, Alexandria, and Harare, formerly named after the then-British PM Lord Salisbury in a country formerly named after the guy who organised its then-conquest, Cecil Rhodes; of course in my native Dublin, to get a street or train station named after you, the smart move used to be to have got yourself executed by the British in 1916 . Or should both sets of !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW as explained above? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most people in Kazakhstan would be far more interested in the fact they beat Scotland 3-0 in the Euro qualifiers last night, not yet another name change... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that (perhaps because reading of Kazakh minds is not one of my telepathic gifts). But the only reason that result was a shock is because Kazakhstan are normally rubbish at soccer despite having a much larger population than Scotland, and most people tend not to be interested in sports where their country is rubbish (indeed arguably most people aren't all that interested in many sports where their country is rather good). But in any case our article is not primarily for the benefit of our Kazakh readers - I suspect it may be of more interest to readers who like to know their capitals because they enjoy quizzes and Trivial Pursuits, etc, even if I'm not quite sure where it says that pleasing Trivial Pursuits addicts is one of the major purposes of ITN Tlhslobus (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality This article is a hot mess. Even the claim that this city has been renamed has [citation needed] tag. It contains clearly anachronistic statements like "Nursultan became the capital city of Kazakhstan in 1997". --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as amendment to blurb already on the front page. Yes, Astana has been renamed on a number of occasions, but that was before it became an important city.  The last time a national capital city has been renamed was in 2000, when Santa Fe de Bogota was renamed Bogota.  The last time a city was renamed significantly fashion rather was when Frunze was renamed Bishkek in 1991.  Furthermore, the renaming of important cities is encyclopedic knowledge and exactly the kind of information Wikipedia should feature more prominently than news media would. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Oppose "Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961." +Astana – Ammarpad (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I never accepted the renaming of Nieuw Amsterdam in 1664, and I don't accept this one either. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment reminds me of what New Mexico and Illinois did after the IAU reclassified Pluto: "we won't accept this, Pluto will remain a planet here". Unfortunately for them, I don't think the rest of the world cared. Banedon (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) European Wikipedia blackouts

 * Comment At least the target article is in relatively good shape. A few citations needed. The only thing I think that is worthy of discussion will be whether this is a truly significant event or just some navel gazing. I think I would be more OK with this if we included Reddit and Twitch.tv. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose navel gazing. If it had been Amazon or Google or Apple or something, sure, but not a handful of our own encyclopedias.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see how this can be seen as navel gazing. Still, more than 91 million internet-connected users in those four countries didn't have access to Wikipedia. Also, for example, Wikipedia is the 7th most visited site in Germany .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confiks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Navel gazing.--174.64.100.70 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Navel. – Sca (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The website blackouts are symbolic at best. If the protests on the 23rd amount to anything, that would be the time to post. —Cryptic 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is still crap (though eventually this POS will be fisted onto the main page because "significant"). "Article 13 would require use of content-matching technologies" oh that sounds interesting, what would the requirements be, what parties would implement it and how would royalties be paid? I have no idea, the article doesn't explain it, instead going into endless detail on special interests complaining about the rules. This is what, the fifth time this piece of shit article has washed up at ITN/C? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia-related news in every case so far has not been ITN-worthy content, and this is no different.  Spencer T• C 01:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eunetta T. Boone

 * Weak support very light on details but what's there is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Small article, but no referencing issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock

 * Oppose for now, too many [citations needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I have covered all the citations requested or hidden the text. (I am not willing to buy into the Telegraph/Times access model so someone who is will probably be able to add more from their obituaries.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The works listed under "As author:" are unsourced. The article seems fine otherwise. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.- Coffee  and crumbs  03:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Google Stadia

 * Oppose - Good faith nom. But even if this were notable, there's no metrics to measure the impact that this product may have until it's been released.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I edited it but User:Czar created it and added some actual content to start the thing. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a good candidate for another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting product announcements. As TRM says, there are other Main Page places this might be suitable. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absolutely no free advertising on the Main Page, please. Or anywhere else. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good faith, and perhaps it can be posted elsewhere as others have noted, but it's not exactly ITN. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 21:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Cyclone Idai

 * I was going to oppose on the basis that it is clearly NOT ongoing, and we don't post to ongoing just because an event has ongoing effects (or we feel the blurb wasn't up long enough). However, it appears an admin has now unilaterally posted this. So...nevermind, I guess.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The ITN guidelines say, "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." This is clearly happening here, just see how much has been added today by Cyclonebiskit.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does. Big-time mea culpa there. I've been misinterpreting "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" as requiring that the events themselves be ongoing. No such requirement exists. My apologies, .  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I added it to Ongoing when I saw it had rolled off without seeing this entry, as the event clearly meets the guidelines quoted above for the reasons given by Cyclonebiskit. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good call. I've amended it to aftermath as the Cyclone itself has dissipated, but moving to ongoing can definitely be at a sole admin's discretion. Stephen 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good solution. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nursultan Nazarbayev's resignation

 * Support WP:ITN/R and article seems reasonably well-sourced and does not have an excessive number of tags. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ITN/R .BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support WP:ITN/R & good-shape articles. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and malformed blurb. Many more citations needed in the target article (eg. Personal life and Honours sections unreferenced). I don't think this is ITN/R. ITNR says nothing about resignations. Perhaps the target should be the new president. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR- though I believe(could be wrong) we don't typically post interim/acting leaders, it seems the Acting President will be so until the end of the term. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ITNR does mention "succession of a head of state", but only "where head of state is not an elected position" (although the article says that all Nazarbayev's elections have been considered sham). Brandmeistertalk  20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That has usually been interpreted to mean any change in head of state. We also don't judge the validity or fairness of a country's elections(some would argue the last US presidential election was a sham because the person with the most votes did not win). 331dot (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As Banedon said below, if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. To your point about "where head of state is not an elected position" though: Nazarbayev was widely regarded by reliable sources to have been a dictator. We would very likely post if Kim Jong Un resigned and appointed a new head of state. Technically, they have elections in the DPRK, just as Nursultan Nazarbayev technically "won his election" with 97.7 percent of the "vote", but transfers of power are extremely rare in Kazakhstan (so rare that this is the only time it's ever happened) Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would further add that if the argument is that the elections shouldn't count as elections because they were just show elections, then the ITNR would apply after all(since the position is not really 'elected') 331dot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. Banedon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but add context: "resigns as President of Kazakhstan after 29 years in power, appointing.." Johndavies837 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also support the inclusion of more contextual information. It is very significant how lengthy Nazarbayev's tenure was (nearly three decades) as the first and (until now) only President of independent Kazakhstan. I've proposed an altblurb, but if someone can produce a more concise version that still includes the significant details, I'd support it. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Given WP:INT/R the suddenness of his resignation and the impact it will have on Kazakhstan, I think that this event is worthy of being on the main page. 20Infernix04 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The whole point of ITNR is that it presumes the event is notable enough for posting on the merits; we are only waiting for agreement on the blurb and adequate article quality. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some citations are needed and the article could do with updating in places. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem with this going up as a blurb (pending a quality review) but to be ITNR there would need to be a standalone article about the change in leadership. I don't recall ever using the article about an elected official as the target of a change of leadership blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please point out where that requirement is. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hrm, you're right, no such requirement exists. Thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nazarbayev did not state any reason for his resignation (much to the shock of Russian officials which viewed him as a key ally). As a result, it would be very difficult to produce an article specifically about the change in leadership which was uniquely sudden and unexplained, but that certainly shouldn't prevent a blurb about the only change in power the country has ever seen. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support altblurb. Clearly notable; this should be made ITN/R if it isn't. The presidency section and the resignation subsection are now sourced, but the remainder of the article still has a few cn tags. Davey2116 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: WP:ITN/R and certainly a notable event. Article also looks to be updated and minimally comprehensive about the resignation, although details about the protests would be nice. Altblurb better shows the significance of the event. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Change of head of state is notable but the article needs more infomation about what is going on, two paragraphs is not going to cut it. Swordman97  talk to me  02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. There are some citing issues across the article but the updated paragraph is ok. More content is always welcome but it covers the basics. I commented out the honors section since it has serious referencing issues. --Tone 08:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull This article has many sourcing and NPOV issues that were ignored. I do not doubt the significance of the event but my issue was with the quality of the article.--- Coffee  and crumbs  16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we note that the capital city Astana has officially been renamed to "Nursultan" effective immediately, or would this make the blurb far too cluttered? Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I briefly thought about this, as the renaming of any country's capital is newsworthy. But perhaps it should be considered on its own merits. Brandmeistertalk  20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karen Uhlenbeck first woman to receive Abel Prize in mathematics

 * Abel is actually ITNR, so we needn't consider the gender aspect.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, the story is not appearing in the front page at the moment, so I thought I'd nominate it. The blurb can be re-worked to down weight gender, if that's what people prefer. I just included this angle because it's the angle that most of the news sources are featuring. OtterAM (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * She certainly is a noteworthy academic, though I would posit that being the first woman is a notable detail of her achievement. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - only a short paragraph for what her work actually is is not sufficient. I realize reading the selected works this is very esoteric math but we still need more discussion of it. --M asem (t) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point. I will try to expand this section later today. If any other math aficionados want to give it a whirl, feel free. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The expanded content works for me. I don't think that needs to be in the blurb but primary concern is met. --M asem  (t) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Interesting story that is getting a lot of press. (I accidentally created a second nomination above, but have removed that one.) I think the article is sufficient for a short biography. OtterAM (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a reference to the New York Times article. OtterAM (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Please crop the watermark before posting. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Or remove protection so I can do it. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)c


 * Support - I will support this because of win of prestigious award, article and sources looks decent.BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a problem with an article that is so unbalanced between the trivial details of her career and any information beyond the bald topic areas of her research. This does not inform readers about what her breakthroughs are and why they are important. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Now much improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Bit list-heavy but sufficient sources and quality. First female winner of "Nobel prize for mathematics" is certainly notable. Per sources, maybe a blurb can be used that includes said commonly made comparison to the Nobel prizes? Regards So  Why  20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This article has come a long way in the last hour.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is (arguably) the highest recognition in mathematics. Absolutely ITN-worthy. Would prefer either the altblurb or altblurb2. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, though may favor the first altblurb 2/2 space constrictions. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support About time for a good news story. Two mass shootings, a natural disaster, and an air crash. Run it!  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not at all "minimally comprehensive". She got the award " for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics." and the achievements section has basically one sentence about each. "She has also contributed to topological quantum field theory and integrable systems" This is one of the reasons she won the award for crying out loud give the WP:READERs something to go on. The article is not suitable for posting to MP for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What would "minimally comprehensive" entail? An in-depth description of her technical work would be more than minimal. There's a reason that the New York Times, CNN, etc. don't say much on her contributions, it's hard to suitably summarize them for a general audience.
 * Her work on singularities of harmonic maps in geometric analysis (aka geometric PDEs) really was foundational and simultaneously applicable to gauge theory, Yang–Mills theory, and integrable systems. In some sense, the three sentences in the latter two paragraphs are really about those contributions in simultaneity (she did not really work on those independently of each other). In any case, it would take more work to provide more in-depth technical descriptions as a non-specialist but I would argue that it is minimally comprehensive. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "minimally comprehensive" is for this subject, that's sort of the point though. I read it, the whole "Research" section is little more than a bullet point list of what she won the award for, it doesn't tell me anything about her contributions to those areas. Honestly all the Able Prize winner articles are poor, except Nash but that's not really fair. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the others are quite a bit more comprehensive, e.g. Jean-Pierre Serre, Michael Atiyah, John Tate. However, Uhlenbeck is not as famous or well-known as some past winners and there is relatively less information on her and her work. In general though, descriptive writing of technical mathematical work is a rare and valuable art. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 1 or 2. Article is sufficient. Davey2116 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2. Article is good to go. Swordman97  talk to me  02:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Finally something that doesn't involve people dying :P Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * --Tone 08:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth To

 * Comment. Needs copy editing and some referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the "one ref at the end of each para" doesn't quite work here, a lot of unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Utrecht shooting

 * Oppose until more details are available upon which we can base a judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks to be of comparatively minor moderate significance. Sca (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Three dead, nine wounded. Blurb amended. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - death toll rises. BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AP, Reuters, dpa say three dead and five (rather than nine) injured. (Added to sources.) – Sca (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rises, yes, but doesn't come close to the 21 killed in Mali on the same day. Barely cracks the top ten deadliest attacks of the week.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , feel free to nominate that attack in Mali. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article is of sufficient quality, well referenced, detailed enough, topic is currently in the news. Checks all the boxes.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub. Motivation still unknown. Outrageous statement "Several witnesses have claimed that the probable motive for the attack was an honour killing after a family dispute between two relatives." not backed by refs. No thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Rare case of mass shooting in the Netherlands. Article has been afd'ed though that seems a strange decision as the story is still in the headlines. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The body count is quite low in the scheme of things, and there is no other factor which may suggest greater significance. There is much bias in the western media about this kind of attack being normal where brown/black people live but big news when it happens in our house. Add to that the theme of one of THEM coming HERE and killing US. We need to be cautious about thinking this significant because of the coverage it is getting; it often says more about the coverage than the event.   GreatCaesarsGhost   11:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Several sources   say terrorism still being considered as a motive (or personal/family issues). – Sca (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. International continued coverage despite the many tragedies in the news cycle. Article seems fine. w umbolo   ^^^  19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted modified blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Brexit negotiations

 * Oppose nothing substantive happens over the weekend. This week will see yet more Brexit votes, and an inevitable delay to implementation of Article 50, this isn't the time to remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The never-ending Brexit story goes on. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wolfgang Meyer

 * Support. Brief but adequate, appears sufficiently sourced (assuming ref 8 covers the entire list) and has been updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I provided an additional ref for the list (and dropped two recordings with organist Wolfgang Meyer) - the list was there before me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. [I acknowledge this is somewhat IAR, as I was one of two supports, but I fear it will be overlooked.] Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(New) Pakistan Super League

 * Comment WOW! Finally a sports nom with at least some prose.--- Coffee  and crumbs  10:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support a big event and this one is significant given issues over the last many years in hosting top-level sport in Pakistan itself. Article is alright, could use a bit more prose, but as noted above, nice to see some there already.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support too late— Bukhari  <font face="Cursive"><font color="0080C0">(Talk!)   09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Krueger

 * Support Looks good to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think this is quite ready. The sourcing needs work -- there are several claims based on primary sources only (not all tagged) as well as unsourced material in the infobox. The lead needs rewriting. When did he stop being chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manohar Parrikar

 * Everybody who has an article on Wikipedia is "significant enough to be present in RD".--SirEdimon (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Everything seems to be accounted for.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - One importante statement is unsourced: "He has since been credited with transparent, efficient and fast decision making in what was till then thought of as a sluggish ministry. He has also opened up several investigations into alleged scams like Augusta Westland Chopper scam." This kind of thing must be referenced.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SirEdimon agree, I have removed this unsourced claim from the article and move to the talk page. Please see if you can now support this-- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go in my opinion.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support good enough quality for RD. Marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stephen, this has already seen 600,000 page views. Is there any In the news/Statistics page like the Did_you_know/Statistics ? this seems like a good candidate. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Dale

 * Everything in the main prose is now cited to a source (with the caveat that I haven't checked every source already in the article beyond a few basic spot checks) and a lot of prose has been cleaned up. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks to Ritchie333, the article is in much better shape. The discography still needs work so it is not ready to post. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think the singles are covered by ref #45. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like the article is good enough to post. Swordman97  talk to me  02:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - decent shape now. BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Jayapura flooding

 * Support - The article is a bit small but seems good enough for me and the death toll is, obviously, very significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is adequate and sourced, though mainly not in English. The BBC is covering this on their world news index page and the ref I've added covers most of the basics. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It's true that this has been overshadowed by NZ shooting and Ethiopia crash, but it's tragic too and the article looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Did not receive due attention because of other major international news, but coverage that did occur was reasonable. Death toll is significant. AusLondonder (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose quality. "The administrative villages of Dobonsolo, Doyobaru and Hini Kumbi were the most affected" most affected how? 73 are dead? Where? How? The impact section has a total of six lines of prose, one of which is dedicated to a damaged helicopter. Is a damaged helicopter "very significant"? I know I'm in the minority here, but this is another disaster stub that tells very little. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per refs, per attention, per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ok coverage of event. Well referenced. Obviously significant number of deaths.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Six Nations Championship

 * Oppose great graphics and tables. Prose?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks prose... It needs background information in the article body and supporting info for some sections. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 04:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Thalassitis

 * Support on quality - good enough for RD --DannyS712 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, marking ready.  Spencer T• C 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BorgQueen thanks, can someone give the credits. Regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  02:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by User:Ammarpad-- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) School strike for climate

 * Support News or Ongoing Disclaimer... I edit this article. Global phenom and original inspiration Swedish teen Greta Thunberg has been nominated for Nobel Peace Prize.  The article attracts new (young?) editors so there are sometimes spates of cleanup work to be done, and extra care to ensure neutrality but its a very good start. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Lots of coverage all right, but while one may very much sympathize with the objective, gauging the impact of these demonstrations, i.e. their significance, is problematic. They haven't had any immediate effect on consequential climate policies or, obviously, on the climate itself. – Sca (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See "Swedish student leader wins EU pledge to spend billions on climate" and "Greta Thunberg—Swedish Teen who Inspired School Climate Strikes—Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize" – NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - significant protest internationally ... by children, even. starship.paint ~  KO   15:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of notability, the article is not main page material in its current state. The table needs quite a few fixes (sourcing, proper sorting, and so on) before it can be considered acceptable quality-wise, and there's some WP:PROSELINE as well. TompaDompa (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, but article needs some work. Davey2116 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The strike appears to already had an immediate impact, the UN Secretary General has called an emergency climate summit in response to the strikes.The lorax (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure "calling for" a meeting to discuss the problem can be described as an impact or effect. Sca (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This is getting a lot of attention and the article looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been "happening" for almost one year now. Why to put it on the main page now? It doesn't seem "ITN" material for me. It's not a current event (that happened in the past few hours or days), it has been happening for a long time now. It seems more like an "ongoing" thing for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although there have been a few here and there, and even fewer have been large (>10,000), there was great buildup to March 15 and estimates are something like 2000+ events in 100+ countries involving 1 to 1.4 million people, just in the last 72 hours. That's very different from the here-and-there events that happened before, even if some of them were "large". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy --PJ Geest (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose still not clear why this isn't "ongoing". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support – Ongoing only, in line with TRM and my comments above. Sca (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Disorganised and poorly sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality and significance, since we're here. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is both something to say for blurb and ongoing. It is true the size of protests of 15 March where exceptional and they don't plan a global strike every week (probably less then once a month). On the other hand it is already been going on (and growing) for a long time. Plus for a lot of countries 15 March was only the first time they protested, so there is a chance this still expands in these countries in the future (which remains of course to be seen). For me this is a bit similar to the yellow vest movement, I don't know the yellow vests where blurb(s) or ongoing? I hope we get to concensus on this fast. PJ Geest (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we should keep in mind that global warming has been "ongoing" for decades if not centuries. Sca (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So has Universe, Evolution, and especially taxation. You're point? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I trust you to figure that out for yourself. – Sca (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In the meanwhile the article has better quality and is better sourced. From above I interpret that there is more support for ongoing. So I suppose we should go for ongoing. --PJ Geest (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Yes it has been ongoing but how does that prevent us from blurbing now . Wars are ongoing but we choose to post blurbs when a significant and distinct event occurs within that war. On 15 March, these strikes came to the first notable climax. Sure, there is a chance for continued growth but this event is at least a noteworthy peak. Unlike other ongoing protests currently, this occurred in multiple countries in coordination. The current blurb is just not good enough and I am not opposed to ongoing but it would be challenged in 24 hours as the page may not sustain the updates required for ongoing. We have a significant noteworthy update and we should try to come up with a good blurb.- Coffee  and crumbs  19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Along those lines see "In the largest ever protest of its kind..." and "...an international strike for climate action — reportedly the largest protest against global warming in human history. An estimated 1.4 million people in 123 countries took part. " NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Coffeeandcrumbs. —Hugh (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What about following blurb: More than 1 million pupils and students worldwide quit school for taking part in the largest protest against global warming in history. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The marches are over, and the coverage of this has ceased, so the event is effectively stale at this point.--WaltCip (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't stale when it was nominated, that's what counts.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the wide coverage of the March 15 strikes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per world wide coverage. per significance. article in decent shape, Blurb ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: W. S. Merwin

 * Support. Well referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support clearly meets RD requirements (great sourcing for the bibliography and awards); marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support done deal, especially now the easter egg links are gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Per above.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal 2019 Venezuelan blackout

 * It seems a little odd to me to remove something that was only added 24 hours ago. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say it's over. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per the article, “the blackout has yet to be fully resolved as of 15 March”. Stephen 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the article is not updated, another good reason to remove it. Per WP:RS "Power has returned to Venezuela after a week after the country was plunged into darkness". --LaserLegs (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some power is back but looking to weeks to restore across the country. That said, this is now in "recovery" mode, so I would remove it as it has nothing directly to do with the ongoing presidential crisis. --M asem (t) 01:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps this could be bumped from the ongoing section to one of the bulleted items, especially since the third newest item at present is from 12 days ago.  Spencer T• C 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats a fine idea, the event was significant and a blurb is certainly appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for a blurb at this point would be something like "Electricity and water is restored to main population centers of Venezuela, after the country suffered a complete national blackout for 7 days". But that's about it. Kingsif (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove but no need for a blurb.If we're to add a blurb for it, then no need for removing it from the Ongoing in the first place. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ”The power outage had yet to be fully resolved as of 16 March” according to Venezuelan sources, or we could quote “reliable” American sources themselves quoting the information minister from a failing government. Stephen 00:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, "fully" resolved according to anti-government Venezuelan sources. Reuters and the Guardian if "American sources" need to be de-legitimized with quotation marks. So we can keep in the ongoing box localized regional blackouts that have absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with the ongoing political issues in the country, or we can get it out of there already. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There, I updated the lead with reliable sources, now can we please get this turd of an article off the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well? Are we pulling this or not? WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you support or oppose pulling it? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed. Now appears out of the news, even if minor outages are still ongoing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Y. S. Vivekananda Reddy

 * Comment - Several paragraphs without a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose first two paras of bio unref. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Idai

 * Support – Impact section could use some work but the rest is a real good start page. Is 15 March the best date for our purposes? I think we are lagging behind sources. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We're definitely behind on the flood event, but the system just made landfall near Beira, Mozambique, and would likely warrant an update blurb regardless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I updated the deaths here after the total increased from 126 to 145 confirmed. Impacts are going to come in at a slow rate since Mozambique could see up to 500mm (20 in) of rain in addition to what it already has. Not to mention the ongoing gale force winds. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 00:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - As above. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until impact on Beira is known, then Support. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:11DC:4DC2:7E1B:466 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good enough for me and the event is clearly significative.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Has impacted hundreds of thousands of people and killed about 140, seems worthy to be on the news. DerpieDerpie D 14:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted KrinkleBot seems to be down so no image for now.  Spencer T• C 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The description is somehow inappropriate as some deaths within the 169 are caused after landfall. 🐱💬 15:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, all the deaths were caused after the first landfall occurred. Probably would be better to use the alt blurb as it gives a more accurate scope of the storm's deadliness without being factually inaccurate. Additionally, I reverted the main one to the original 126 since we can't be certain of what was caused before and after the second landfall. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Shifted to alt blurb. Thanks,  Spencer T• C 00:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Several sources  indicate death toll in region may approach 1,000. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We did note that in the article. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved to Ongoing. The event is still in the headlines internationally and major updates are continuing to the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Christchurch mosque shootings

 * Support but wait a few hours as the incident is still ongoing and the article is not yet well developed. This is an unprecedented event in New Zealand - we've had terrorist incidents before but not involving this number of (probable) deaths, possible multiple perpetrators, and never with automatic weapons, which are not readily available in this country. The blurb needs work. Excuse me if I'm not coherent, I'm in shock.- gadfium 03:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - And post as soon as possible. BabbaQ (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait Yes this is notable, but we need more information and a better blurb. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The blurb needs tweaking. Hazara Birar  (Talk)
 * Wait - Not clear information. Article is not ready Sherenk1 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is updated with new information. The event is clearly notable. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:11DC:4DC2:7E1B:466 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - police have now confirmed multiple fatalities, which makes it ITN-worthy IMHO, given the rarity of such events in that part of the world. Blurb needs work though (no need for the street, for instance); I suggest something like A mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, results in multiple deaths. Adpete (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Adpete, and concur on their suggestion of a clearer blurb. —Hugh (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Will we be clearly indicating that this was a terrorist attack>? DS (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Best here to follow the lead of the main news sources, per WP:RS. But certainly not yet, since I haven't seen it called that in the RS. Adpete (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait Still needs more information, but it is notable enough. ∻ℳcCunicano 04:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Update – PM confirmed at least 40 deaths. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now at least 49. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb Can we reword the blurb to say "white supremacist terror attack"? The PM of Australia is already using the word 'terrorism' to describe what has happened. The shooter's manifesto also spoke of "white identity"-TenorTwelve (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Unless you get that phrase accepted into the article. Stephen 09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. We generally do not identify ideological motivations for mass shootings in blurbs. I don't recall "Islamic extremists" or "anti-gay" showing up in earlier terror attack blurbs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Update – Mike Bush confirmed 50 deaths. This is likely the final toll so no need for at least.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jake Phelps

 * Oppose Article is a stub. --___<em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#aa6ef4">CAPTAIN MEDUSA <em style="font-family:grafolitascript;color:#000000">talk   11:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is no longer a stub. Editors are clearly interested in it. Lots of press about him with his recent passing. --Wil540 art (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose basically a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, just about good enough, and not a lot of other details online about him. Stephen 03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Tel Aviv attempted strike

 * Wait - Until further escalations etc. If that happens consider this a Support.BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Usual skirmish. Already out of news Sherenk1 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Usual? This is the first rocket attack to reach Tel Aviv since 2014. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose practically expected in a de facto warzone. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose agree with The Rambling Man, I dont think this deserves an article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no reported casualties. See List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2018 (or replace the 18 with any number starting from 01) as a sense of how unusual this is. Juxlos (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Birch Bayh

 * Oppose Still needs a fair amount of work. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD, may be a blurb candidate: authors of portions of the US constitution probably qualify. Only 'unreferenced' section I saw currently is self-referencing to pre-Internet official government publications.  Currently meets any reasonable referencing requirements. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I tagged the hell out of the page and all requested citations were provided. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now fully sourced after the work of Coffeeandcrumbs (and myself). Davey2116 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Godfried Danneels

 * Comment: Some references needed for Godfried_Danneels, the uncited quote in Godfried_Danneels, and the uncited quote in Godfried_Danneels. Otherwise, seems to do a good job covering his life with appropriate depth.  Spencer T• C 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite a lot of tags to be dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose around 20 [citation needed] tags in a BLP? Nein danke. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Whiting

 * Weak oppose for someone in such a prominent position for such a period, the article is basically a stub. What's there seems fine, but just not comprehensive. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added links to some obituaries to the talk page. Not got time to add from them myself atm. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Expanded so it is no longer a stub. Reasonably well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. What's there is referenced but it's not really comprehensive enough - the 2005 US GP incident does seem to be unduly prominent and the "Legacy" section isn't about his legacy but tributes to him. He was of massive importance to the sport and does have a great legacy in terms of safety improvements, etc. that just isn't covered at all. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Have expanded a bit more. Everything that is there is referenced, and the vital details about him are there as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Appears decent enough. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Harry Hughes

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Frank Cali

 * Oppose Many unsourced statements. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose looks to have been substantially improved, but not quite there yet with the referencing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Lagos school collapse

 * Comment – Not a real article yet. (AFP says search of ruins has ended with death toll at nine.) – Sca (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * AP on Friday puts death toll at 20. Sca (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Would support if filled out. Currently a very stubby stub. Kingsif (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still a stub. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Updated) Revisiting the existing Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 blurb
Not really a new nomination, but as commented in the previous one, there was a suggest about the Boeing MAx 8 being grounded in response to the incident. Now, there was a valid concern that this was a few countries and not Boeing grounding them or some international organization. Just now, Trump says the FAA with agreement with Boeing are ordering all Boeing Max 8 + 9 planes grounded, which, between all the other countries with these still in the air, effectively grounds the entire fleet. . I think that satisfies the concern of the previous nom, in that now it is appropriate to mention this as a response to the crash. --M asem (t) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose proseline and flag salad. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support aircrafts crash sometimes, but such international ban of an aircarft is very rare.--Joseph (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb only - Significant development. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb per nominator. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT my concerns are now by-the-by since the grounding has the formal backing of several large aviation authorities, albeit not Boeing themselves. Much more substantive than a few airlines.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb I or II ... since the EU, the U.S. (on Trump's order) and Canada have joined countries grounding the 737-Max 8. It's still only a precaution, but in terms of impact it's significant. – Sca (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT blurb only No reason to focus on U.S. and EU alone when the PRC (also home to two of the top 10 airlines by revenue) preceded them. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That it's a U.S. plane is part of the equation, though. Sca (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality of the new target article. Support ALT blurb only, in principle. I do not mind most of the tables and later sections. But the section on "Regulatory response" must be changed to prose before we proceed.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * and the "Airlines" section which could be done with a few choice sentences.--- Coffee  and crumbs  21:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree the airlines section could be a bit of prose, I do not agree that the regulatory agencies should be converted: these are all basically "X grounded the planes on date" form which would get extremely burdensome in prose (that's close to proseline problems). --M asem (t) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Context and nuance is lost in a bulleted list. It is not as difficult as you say: "China was the first to ground MAX 8 on ... X, Y, Z quickly followed suit on the same day. A few hours later, A, B, C, annouced similar decisions. The following day.... E, F, E also announced similar measures. US, UK, and Vietnam? were the only remaining. On March 12, the United States....". Otherwise, the US being a hold-out is crucial information included in the lead that is not treated in the body. I like rALT2--- Coffee  and crumbs  22:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. Can't easily see how that section would make good prose. Might even be an argument for making that a table as well. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'd compare that to the whole "begat" section of Genesis 5 in the Bible. Might be prose, but it would be extremely boring prose. It can be worth mentioning in a sentence lead the first few, but that's one sentence, not the entire list. --M asem (t) 23:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would prefer ALT2 to phrase it the other way round: Following the crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 with the loss of all 157 people on board, Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are grounded worldwide. The plane crash is still the main story, but the grounding is now a corollary to it. Obviously wait until other article up to snuff as well, per Coffeeandcrumbs. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support version suggested by Amakuru. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am listing this as a second alternative blurb. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated Stephen 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Research paper on quantum computing

 * Oppose only on article quality grounds. The target article requires an update to answer the question: "why are posting today?" The article also requires an upgrade in referencing. I will try to help this evening when I have time. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The target article is irredeemable in any timely manner. Large portions were plagiarized directly from a few select books and it doesn't even give them the minimum level of respect by citing them.--- Coffee  and crumbs  05:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose this is fake news as written. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk  22:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support very interesting (although this technique is not going to raise the dead, mend broken coffee cups, or send us back to yesterday so we can make a killing on today's stock markets), plus it's making the news. Banedon (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not the top story in any of the major media outlets, will likely be forgotten within the next few days. 2600:1015:B058:9A84:907C:F100:31A5:93DE (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but I feel this is a case where DYK should accept interesting scientific discoveries that are in the news but not significant enough for posting. --M asem (t) 23:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've adjusted the heading here to be more descriptive. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, lay media falls for a sciency gimmick again. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Abductive's "don't believe the hype!!". Let's not get sucked into becoming The Daily Mail... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Suzano Massacre

 * Needs a neutral title, typically would be '(school name) shooting'. --M asem (t) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dunblane Massacre (school shooting), Tumeremo massacre (Latin American mass shooting)? I think Massacre is a suitable precedent. Kingsif (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's already been moved to Professor Raul Brasil State School shooting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be moved back, because a quick search will show you that it's called the Suzano massacre in Portuguese sources and the Suzano shooting in English sources; the school name is barely mentioned in most sources of any language. Kingsif (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Cleaned article up, still short but at least has important details. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ... pending expansion. Guardian says eight victims and two gunmen dead. (Two sources added.) – Sca (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: 2019 Brazil school shooting would be a better, more generalized title, IMO. Sca (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (quick search) yes, that is widely used. My one issue is a nitpicky thing - Brazil is a BIG country, and Suzano is a city of something like 300,000 already: it would be a little Western-centric (non-specific) to refer to it by the country, especially since most major English news sources at least narrow it down to Sao Paulo. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Suzano may be a sizeable city, but (in my journalism experience) it's not a headline word outside Brazil. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking title debate to the talk page if you want to join. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Noteworthy when this happens outside the U.S. (regerettably) Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sturm (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub. Notable when it happens IN the USA too, like it or not. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds. Almost all the article is a breathless narrative of the event, not an encyclopaedia article detailing the background, circumstances, significance, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thryduulf - it is not in an encyclopedic tone and needs a complete re-write.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but only after we improve the article. It does have a lot of issues. A school shooting is always notable no matter where it happens, especially one with 10+ deaths. - Alumnum (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article was greatly updated. Article is not longer a stub. About the background, it's hard to write about it as many details about the perpetrators are still unknown.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready - It's been expanded quite a bit in the last day, and I've just spent some time copyediting it to standards. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 23:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove: Battle of Baghuz Fawqani

 * Oppose I don't see why there is no room. That said, if we must choose... the battle is likely to be far more consequential than the protests in Algeria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove not headline news anymore (never really was) and it's getting one update a day with the daily body count. This battle is going to rage on forever. Blurb it when ISIL gives up. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Should have never been up in the first place. Blurb when their done, not ongoing because it's getting close.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's still seeing coverage. All the things that are on ongoing are going to continue for a while, so that's not a reason to remove. Keep it there and blurb it when it's done. Banedon (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article still being updated. That is the metric these things are decided on. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it also has to be "In the news" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is in the news every day. A hook should be prepared soon. w umbolo   ^^^  13:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Associated Press reporting now: "US-backed forces admit to 'difficulties' beating IS in Syria". w umbolo   ^^^  17:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Gabriel said the camp was approximately 0.25 square kilometers in size — much the same area it was five weeks ago, when the SDF said it was finally going to conclude the battle."  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(Appended) 2019 Venezuelan blackout

 * Support Biggest blackout in Venezuelan history - close to nobody has any water or power - and almost definitely not directly part of the crisis already in ongoing before anyone mentions that. Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not an article, it's a news story. It should be a section on 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.  That article is already on the main page - don't post duplicates. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Amendment I will support a blurb if someone else writes it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because a blackout is caused by political disputes, definitely not a country that hasn't funded its electrical infrastructure for 5 years. Did you not read my comment? Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't a news story, this is the longest and largest blackout in Latin America, not only in Venezuela, and it is ongoing, as well as having international coverage. I was thinking about suggesting, if possible and if other editors agree, with replacing the presidential crisis article with this. It can be discussed if the former article should be restored afterwards. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why remove the presidential crisis, though? More than one thing can be ongoing in the same country at once. Surprising, I know. Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if other editors consider it convenient. I would love that both articles are included, but others may not see it practical, which is why I see the replacement as a hypothetical solution. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not comprehensive. What is the affected region (article says "most") and what is the cause ("sabotage" of what? crumbling what?). If this does get posted it should be as a one-off blurb not another Venezuela themed ongoing entry --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Either 22 or 18 states, out of 23, depending on who you listen to; and there was an entire section on Cause at the time you posted that comment. Perhaps it would be better as a blurb, but when? When it's over? Kingsif (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it's 22 or 18? Feels like we need to know the extent to be minimally comprehensive. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like to ask people from every state of a country without electricity or phone service? Or get the politicians to agree how bad it is? Getting accurate news out of official Venezuelan sources is hard at the best of times, putting up all the information we know is at least close and accurate. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All I know is that articles posted to ITN have to be "minimally comprehensive" and an article about a blackout that has more factoids about individual insignificant impacts of the blackout than it does details about the extent and cause is not "minimally comprehensive". Do the lights come back on in Caracas if we speedily post this crappy article to the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying speedily post it, I was challenging your reason for opposing since it's something we may never know. Most reliable info is going to be certain newspaper spoke to some people. But collect it, you have a not-insignificant country without power and at least 40 dead because of it. The cause is explained, but I think the diagram is copyright so we can't get much more comprehensive there. Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, tarticle needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Other than bumping the death toll, what pertinent info could be added Thursday, Friday...?  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per power~enwiki. This is clearly seeing ongoing coverage so it's a viable item, but we already have another entry on the same topic. One or the other - if we post this, we should remove the other entry about the presidential crisis. Banedon (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there was a sudden nationwide electrical blackout in the UK, would you remove Brexit to add it to ongoing? No, no you wouldn't. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there was a sudden nationwide electrical blackout in the UK with no connections to anything else, would I support it for ongoing? No, I wouldn't. This is only a potential item because it's tied to the presidential crisis. Banedon (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have suggested it for a blurb, realistically. But there is the energy crisis in Venezuela (there's a lot of crises) and it could go on for a long time. If the UK had a week-long complete blackout, imagine. It would already be up there. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, as long as the blackout is tied to the presidential crisis, I think there should only be one item. In the same way if the UK had a week-long blackout and the government blames "anti-Brexit activists" + news articles refer to it as such, that should not be posted as a separate item from the main Brexit article. Banedon (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that the presidential crisis is tied to the blackout, if you catch my meaning. The dispute has been ongoing for two months and most of its important events have happened: Maduro's inauguration, Guaido's oath, recognition by other countries, US sanctions and the shipping of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, in a week a lot has happened with the blackout: Pinging, deaths, lootings, shortages of food as well as water and fuel supplies, etc. If you ask me, I think the presidential crisis is on a second level now.--Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm OK if we remove the presidential crisis article from ongoing and add this one on the blackout. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a blurb, I just think we're starting to lose sight of what is meant by the ongoing designation. This article was created today. If it rolls off and substantial events are still occurring, do the ongoing then.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see there's a lot of disagreements here. Today I started a lootings section in the Spanish Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, one estimate of the economic losses was over $700 million. I invite anyone who wants to, for the time being, to translate while I include other sections, and if it seen better, I could nominate a blurb. In that case, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination of the option that wasn't agreed on. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * $875 million, according to the Ecoanalítica firm. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These dollar estimates are always speculation in the end. Oppose any estimate of economic damages of the blackout in the blurb. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much disagreement I see. I see 12 edits of blind support from two not-exactly-objective editors, and 4 other editors who say we should probably post something but not TWO Venezuelan-specific ongoing stories that are probably not all that disconnected.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "blind", I'm just (admittedly forcefully) trying to get across that if this happened even in a city in the US it would be speedily posted, no question. To beat the horse a little more:
 * No power or water to Chicago? Would've been a blurb 5 days ago and put in Ongoing as soon as it fell off. The only connection between this and the presidential crisis is that they are both symptoms of the current Venezuelan government. Like Brexit and Trump can't cause a blackout, neither can Guaido challenging Maduro. It's a large scale event with a large impact, that's in the news, it's got to be against something at ITN to disagree on the basis of there's already something from that country, especially with a country that's got as much going on as Venezuela does. Like if nation X were hosting the World Cup and then one of their famous retired footballers died, you wouldn't not post it because it's from the same country and they're both related to football. The article may need some more (hard to get) info, but I feel scale has definitely been established. Kingsif (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – We could add it as a parenthetical. I think it's been done before. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like this proposal. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe just rename the ongoing item to "Venezuelan crisis". Abductive  (reasoning) 07:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That would defeat the purpose of ITN, which is to link readers to the article. We can't link to both that way. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So your "parenthetical" would link to both? That would be fine, then. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep: Venezuelan presidential crisis (electrical blackout). --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't draw a connection between the blackout and the presidential crisis so no, you can't just bolt it on after the presidential crisis in ongoing. Did Guaidó set fire to that brush just to discredit Maduro? Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you amend your reasoning for opposing. It appears the article has undergone a major copyedit and referencing. Your oppose seems strange now that the article is up to snuff. I am considering supporting a blurb since this is a not a directly related incident as you pointed out.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article is pretty good now, has several good paragraphs around the cause -- which is fuck all to do with the totally unrelated protests -- and should be a blurb just like the Indian, Italian and North American blackouts. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Appended to the existing ongoing item Stephen 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2019 Algerian protests

 * Question The timeline updates run through March 8. So, doesn't that mean it's over, and not ongoing? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * updated with the student strikes on the 12th. Who knows what Friday will bring? I've finally finished the rework of the translation. SashiRolls t · c 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the "ongoing" nature of this is subject to WP:CRYSTAL then. Oppose per Stephen. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't it always? Today, it looks like it was the teachers and the opposition urging continued action during the general strike.  But yes, by all means check out the clouds in Stephen's crystal ball :)   SashiRolls t ·  c 01:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It's clear that those protests are going to change the Algerian politicis after the resignation of Bouteflika to continue in office. He can be considerated the last "authoritarian" leaders of Magreb countries after the falling of Mubarak, Gaddaffi and Ben Ali. It's seems that Algeria is going to open a new era...maybe. (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, support blurb Um...not exactly the "last."  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it's WP:CRYSTAL to speculate this might cause a second Arab Spring - but this is a high-profile ongoing crisis for the government of Algeria. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Alsoriano97. Banedon (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems to have petered out with students only protesting every Tuesday Stephen 01:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support -- it obviously did not "peter out". (General strike since Sunday, Monday:   Bouteflika (just back from the hospital in Geneva) drops out of the election and cancels the election, and dissolves the government; Tuesday:  student protest, Wednesday:  teachers demonstrate, Thursday:  doctors, lawyers demonstrate, Friday:  hundreds of thousands in the streets of the major cities (larger than the largest Yellow vests protests, which were on the front page for nearly a month).  Is there some bias against Africa by any chance?   SashiRolls t ·  c 19:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has no material updates on activity past a student protest on the 12th.Stephen 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated. §§
 * and reupdated (to 17 March). I apologize for upsetting you by moving this up to 15 March because of the rather large demonstrations. In the nomination you deleted, I did express the hope that "knowledgeable readers" would come and add some info.  I'd thought this might happen were it on the front page.  A "smile revolution" might be a nice counterpoint to the blazes on the Champz E-lézée, don't you think?  SashiRolls t ·  c 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not seeing continuous updates to the article at 2019_Algerian_protests.  Spencer T• C 22:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, I'd just finished a long week of work. Maybe if it had been on the front page when it was front page news everywhere else (12 March), it would have been updated more rapidly.  In point of fact, though, the entry has been updated with 14-15 March, and has grown from 41.1K to 52.4K (about 25%) since 12 March.  SashiRolls t ·  c 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 college admissions bribery scandal

 * Oppose Interesting but no significant long term impact; furthermore, indictments generally aren't posted at ITN, and sentencing for all of those indicted (if they indeed end up being sentenced) would likely occur at a variety of different times. Seems like something better suited for DYK.  Spencer T• C 04:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. They said it all. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose better suited to another place. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Like that suggested for the Brexiteers. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are zillions of similar bribery scandals in many countries of the world. I'd have even questioned its notability had it happened in one of the least corrupted countries such like New Zealand or Finland.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support doomed I know but it's in the news, the article is ok, and the fact that it's a coordinated scheme involving numerous top ranking universities in a country not known for this kind of corruption is what makes it interesting. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Reporting on this has been so lurid, we have the opportunity to provide real value by organizing the facts in an encyclopedic manner. The broader topic of college admissions (and its seedy underbelly) has global interest.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Per above two supports. Sherenk1 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Lives of the rich and (in)famous. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Rich people flex their wealth for their own ends". ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bankers’ nieces seek perfection / expecting all the gifts that wise men bring." – Sca (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's not really notable outside USA. In Spain we also had that kind of scandals involving high-class politicians, it is happening everywhere. Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What goes around comes around. The only thing notable about this is that these people got caught doing it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support An interesting story which I think our readers will be looking for, and the article is fine.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 50 high profile people are going to jail over this... how is this not news?! I don’t care if this is the plot of The Perfect Score or a hypothetical Shameless episode. How much more significant coverage does a story need? NY Times. LA Times. Washington Post. NBC. CNN. USA Today. Fox News. Vanity Fair. Even ESPN.... Trillfendi (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indictment ≠ going to jail.  Spencer T• C 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I jumped the gun there; I saw some article that people were facing 3 years in jail if convicted in a trial. The justice system should play out. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , two of the accused are now convicted as they have pled guilty. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose They've been charged, but not convicted. Unless we were talking extremely high level political figures involved with this, this can wait until the conviction of the ringleader. --M asem (t) 14:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's still a scandal whether they get convicted or not. Since there's nobody named, I don't think the legal position has too much to do with it. Scandals are big whatever the weight behind it. Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I meant about the political side is that we'd likely post if this was a figure like the president, vice-president, speaker of the house, or a Supreme Court justice, as that's affecting the way the country is ruled. As we are talking mostly celebrities and business people in this, that doesn't affect the larger scale, so we should not post the arrests, but wait for conviction. --M asem (t) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that. But I think even if there were no arrests let alone convictions, it would still be making news right now, no? There's a chance that by the time any actual convictions happen, the scandal will be over, and I wouldn't support posting based on old news. Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , two of the ringleaders have pled guilty. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not a conviction, and pleading guilty greases settlement details. --M asem (t) 17:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for multiple reasons. We shouldn't be posting indictments of BLPs here before a conviction occurs. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , two of the accused are convicted. They have pled guilty. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is it a BLP vio to post the WP:Verifiable fact that they've been charged? If it's a BLP vio, it needs to come off the project ASAP not just shunned from the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think power-enwiki means we shouldn't be putting an item about criminal charges against a notable person on the Main Page (unless, I would except, the person is a head of state or government or some large NGO, per Masem above). Articles are a different thing; major criminal charges against a notable person are notable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is not internationally notable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , In_the_news/Candidates ... "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." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why did you pick on me for this when quite a few other people posted this exact rationale for their opposes without drawing your comments? What makes me so special? Hmm ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , because I didn't notice the others. And you are special to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Alsoriano97. Banedon (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Notable story and the article is extraordinarily good. Most of the !opposes are invalid because they claim this "relates only to one country". Davey2116 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. Even if this is notable (and I'm unconvinced) we would post at the time of conviction per BLP. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to ongoing) Brexit negotiations

 * Wait there are two more votes this week and we can blurb the outcome which is more fitting I think. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think waiting for 2 more votes and a blurb is a good idea, because people are already interested in the matter now, and the 2 votes will likely leave things as unclear as ever (short or long delay, for what purpose, etc), and our blurb is liable to mislead our readers: for instance we are quite likely to give them the impression that Brexit has been postponed, only to embarrassingly discover 2 weeks later that it hasn't, either because one of the EU 27 vetoes the postponement, or because British law (which currently mandates Brexit on March 29) isn't amended on time, via devices such as filibusters and clever time-wasting amendments in the Commons and/or the Lords, etc ... Tlhslobus (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We'd blurb that parliament voted to ask for an extension. Nothing official happens until the EU votes to grant it or not, so ongoing seems a bit embarrassing for a process that will have stalled again after Thursday. I'll put my blurb proposal up for a meaningful vote, frankly it's the best deal possible. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - There'll be plenty of news regarding this theme during the coming days. I think we can post it as "ongoing" and, in the future, eventually post the outcome as a blurb.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing - Support Ongoing on notability, at least in principle. I'll leave others to decide on quality. But it's not entirely clear whether this is the right target article, as most of the new info seems to be going into Meaningful vote (which is currently the subject of a name change discussion), and incidentally that was why Brexit (NOT Brexit negotiations) got removed from ongoing in January (perhaps wrongly, at least in my view, as I unsuccessfully argued at the time, tho in the end I decided not to bother to open a new nomination of Meaningful vote for Ongoing at the time). I've now wikilinked Brexit negotiations to Meaningful vote (which was previously only wikilinked from Brexit), and maybe that will help a bit. Meanwhile I've also explained above why I don't think waiting for 2 more votes and a blurb is a good idea. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing in general, but keeping in mind that the 29th(?) is the deadline, we may want to wait for week or two week point. Not that the vote today is not a significant point, but yes, now we seem to be in rush mode on this. --M asem (t) 02:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think this "thing" will gonna end on March 29.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing because it is heating up as March marches on. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing this is going to run and run, at least for the next few days. It's obviously of high importance to hundreds of millions of people. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to ongoing Stephen 08:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Post posting support This is a crisis. A large crisis. In fact, if you got a moment, it's a twelve-storey crisis with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying "This Is a Large Crisis". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, Ritchie, but I supported it, and now you're making me have my doubts - if it needs an enormous sign on the roof to tell us it's a large crisis, surely that's prima facie evidence that's it's really only a tiny crisis desperately using expensive advertising to try to convince us that it's much bigger than it looks Tlhslobus (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support as an American. I considered nominating this last night, but preferred to let the British editors endorse it first. The votes this week (and up through the scheduled exit date later this month) will be news.  This is now an active issue that should be on Ongoing. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - This is the biggest news story of the year so far, bar none.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment it's posted already, with nearly universal support, I'm not sure what "post-posting support" is adding at this point. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what your comment is adding at this point, either. Banedon (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Xing Shizhong

 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Good enough for me.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Antônio Wilson Vieira Honório

 * Comment - I fixed all the dead links and ref issues and updated the article.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I included more information.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs a little prose on the managerial career, I would think.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment needs a little tone copyedit, we don't normally note a partnership as "mythical" for instance (well not in Wikipedia's own voice). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Tried to resolve the tone problem. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hal Blaine

 * Support. The article is looking good. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kelly Catlin

 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man the article has got several improvements since you first commented. Please see if it is good to go now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Has been expanded with sources. Looks good now. Regards So  Why  12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Already proposed under March 8 header. Regards So  Why  12:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:SoWhy Thanks for pinging me, I have merged both nominations. Apology for the double nomination, the talk page did not had ITN Note and I did not check the 8 March header. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Really not much more than a stub, but probably not much more that can be expanded.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - just over stub level. But sufficientz so posting seems ok.BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – The article could be expanded, as coverage has been widespread , but even as is it's worth RD due to the unusual circumstances. – Sca (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - article has been expanded, still very short but adequate. -Zanhe (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Now that some basic expansion has been done, and everything is sourced.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Stephen can someone give the credits ? regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Stephen. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ronnie O'Sullivan reaches 1,000 century breaks

 * This is a very brave nomination. – Sca (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally admire such sport achievements and find it highly convenient to have them as a fine encyclopedic material on the main page. We posted Sachin Tendulkar's 100th cricket century in March 2012 and Magnus Carlsen's all-time record-breaking FIDE rating in January 2013, so why not give this the same accolade and refresh the ITN section with something really interesting? That's primarily why I decided to go for it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the Peyton Manning principle. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the same. We also didn't post when Ronnie O'Sullivan overtook Stephen Hendry's record but having set a higher-digit milestone is far more notable. I'd like to see another nomination of someone achieving 1,000 touchdowns and would be glad to support it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality. The Career section of Ronnie O'Sullivan was forked without leaving a summary. It is essentially missing. Century break does not contain a sufficient update.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu, and I don't think the 2012 and 2013 nominations should've been posted either. Banedon (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable achievement in the sport and article is in good shape. I support us when we post personal achievements at a high level. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose individual records outside of the most exceptional circumstances (Jack's majors, Hank's HRs). I also find it conspicuous how many of the leaders are active. Implies the century is easier to get that it used to be.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, it may just imply that players are getting better. Similar improvements happen in other sports such as athletics, tho quite likely they may sometimes be drug-assisted. But you're probably right about snooker, because there are more professional events now (a century may still be as difficult, but there are now more opportunities to try to get one). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose it's certainly an achievement, but not, particularly, one with global resonance. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Global resonance" is not a requirement for posting on ITN. (WaltCip, logged out) --128.227.165.102 (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a synonym for bleedin' "significant" :p    ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per everybody else. Apart from anything else, centuries in snooker are normally an irrelevant sideshow - (unlike centuries in cricket, for instance) it normally makes no difference to the match result whether your break ends around 90 or goes on to 100 and more. Indeed deliberately missing a pot around 90 may actually help you win by ensuring you waste less energy, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article on Ronnie O'Sullivan is commendably improved compared to December, but this isn't important enough. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Powers Jr.

 * Support up to quality standards, both cn tags fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302

 * Support. Casualties are being reported from reliable sources. Article is in reasonable shape.Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Now confirmed all 157 on board killed. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Sad news. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article seems fine. Seems strangely similar to Lion Air Flight 610. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Major news. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm a lousy prose writer but the whole "aircraft" section makes the MAX 8 sound like a flying death trap. "second fatal crash" ... "Only 350". It needs to be made more neutral. Unlike our usual disaster stubs, if there is an issue with the 737 this is actually interesting and significant. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit from Flight International backing up worries that there may be an issue. Both 737 MAXs were lost shortly after take-off. No evidence atm that there is a link, but there is certainly speculation that there may be a link. Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks good and much of the press reporting surrounds the MAX 8 so the coverage is not undue. Good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – No. 1 story (three sources added). – Sca (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, just the image and paperwork to do now. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Trouble ahead for Boeing and airlines who have bought the MAX 8: "The MAX 8 could be grounded if a link is found -- either by the company itself, or by governments, though the former is more likely to come first, Schiavo says. "The voluntary basis is always the better way to go -- but it will be expensive for Boeing."" Count Iblis (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'China halts Boeing 737 Max 8 flights. Count Iblis (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think given the hot water Boeing is in over this, we may want to modify the blurb slightly, something like "China and others halt Boeing 737 Max 8 flights after the second fatal crash of one, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, killed all 157 people aboard." --M asem (t) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree - the grounding is a significant part of the story now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Maybe China knows something the rest of the world doesn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Some of the groundings may apply to all 737 MAX, not just the MAX 8 variant. Not clear that only the MAX 8 is affected, although it was involved in the two crashes. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So while the current blurb is not actually wrong, it may be lacking quite a significant detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I'm reading, some nations/airlines are grounding all MAX series, but the main reaction has been to ground just the MAX 8 due to the similarities with Lion Air (when it happened, how it crashed, etc.). I think for brevity that we just have to say "grounded the Max 8 planes", and not worry about the edge cases. --M asem (t) 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the Lion Air and the Ethopian air crashes have been preliminarily tied to the MCAS system which is a new feature on the MAX 8. But that's the preliminarily findings, nothing conclusive. We do now have an article on 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis which we might want to link. --M asem (t) 20:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've linked that article. Don't think it should be bolded though, the crash is still the main story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Can somebody (User:Mjroots?) please pull the current blurb and rephrase it to (something like) this: "All 157 people on board are killed as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes shortly after take-off. Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610 crash. The current blurb is problematic in all sorts of ways. The crash itself is obviously the primary focus of the story but the way the current blurb written gives the reader the impression that the grounding of the jets is the main part of the story - which is clearly isn't. Secondly there's no mention of the Indonesian crash which provides the backstory to all of this; without mentioning the context the reader is going wonder why there was/is such a strong reaction to the crash. And finally there is the problem of bias/lack of proportionality/just bad judgment here, the blurb is leading off with China when Ethiopia (and for that matter Indonesia) is the country that is most affected by the crash. I am okay with mentioning other countries that grounded the plane but it just doesn't make sense to lead off that part of the blurb with any country other than Ethiopia (which it should also be noted was the first country to ground the plane). Syopsis (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * First, by linking to the Boeing Max 8 Crisis article, the context of why planes are being grounded is established, as it mentions the Lion Air crash there. Secondly, we need to stay concise in the text blurb. The fact that a more concise blurb seems to delegate the "focus" to the back half of a sentence, is not really a concern. We're not "burying the lede" to speak. --M asem (t) 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the original posted hook should be restored. We should not (as noted above) apply our own personal opinion of direct causality between this singular incident and the suspension of aircraft.  There's too much backstory for us to make that postulation on the main page.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:The Rambling Man The backstory is the Indonesia crash, but the problem is that isn't even mentioned in the current blurb. That said, we can both agree it just has to go as it has got all sorts of problem with it. Syopsis (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fully commensurate with the backstory, which is why I stated clearly that rewriting and posting this blurb as it had been was patent original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * talk I propose this blurb tell me if this would work: "All 157 people on board are killed as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes shortly after take-off. Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610 crash.Syopsis (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, far too long, we don't post multi-sentence blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * talk The current blurb is multi-sentence it's almost 3 sentences long. That said I propose this blurb tell me if this would work: ''"Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes with no survivors; Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610. Syopsis (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and actual fact, just a handful have grounded it, many many other airlines haven't. If Boeing themselves recommended grounding it, I'd be up for an adjusted blurb, but they haven't and right now given more haven't grounded than have, it's not really that notable.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is widespread coverage of the grounding, it's almost as important as the crash itself. And fwiw since you are talking about Boeing there's already been financial ramifications for copmpany as a result of this (and the Indonesian) crash. Syopsis (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, goes without saying, but the point here is that we have far more airlines continuing to the fly the aircraft type than grounding it. And Boeing saying pretty much nothing.  Once again, if Boeing ground them, I'm all in for a blurb change.  Until then, the handful of airlines who have grounded it just amounts to caution and risk aversion with (currently) no evidence.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in that case there's no point in continuing this debate. The numbers thing is irrelevant the main point is we go by what the news sources are saying and a big part of the focus is now on the reaction to the crash - such as the countries/airlines that have grounded the plane. Syopsis (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, and indeed that completely trivialises the fact that the main story here is the death of more than 150 people. Subsequent corporate actions are interesting, but trivial in comparison.  If Boeing say there's a design flaw which is directly responsible, I'm all ears. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no OR in the claims that the grounding of the MAX 8 is due to this crash. Ethiopian Airlines clearly announced their grounding as a result of the crash, for example. And most RSes have clearly made the connection for us that groundings were ordered due to the crash. --M asem (t) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * t I propose this blurb tell me if this would work: "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes with no survivors; Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610. Syopsis (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the reason for grounding after multiple crashes of the same type of aircraft usually depends on more than just one crash. That is most certainly the case here.  The grounding is as a result of multiple incidents.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb wasn't stating the reason, it was stating that the grounding was ordered after the crash, which is factually true, requiring no OR. Now, I think readers are intelligent to be aware that once they know of the previous Lion Air crash of the same plane, they can figure out that the rataionle to ground we due to both crashes, but no airline (that I can easily determine) have made that statement specifically - that's what the media clearly implies though. --M asem (t) 21:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, whether intended or not, the hook was placing direct causality between this singular crash and the grounding, the grounding which incidentally is purely out of caution and risk aversion, not because Boeing says it should happened, the grounding which incidentally has impacted a handful of airlines while plenty of other operators are carrying on regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has grounded about a 3rd of the total MAX 8 fleet out there (350 total, with China having the most at around 96). However, I do understand where you're coming from, that the individual countries or airlines ordering the ground is different than if Boeing or some international agency ordered the full grounding of the MAX 8. I still feel the grounding is the current part of the story, but agree now we need more discussion on that inclusion. --M asem (t) 21:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Original hook restored for now per lack of consensus demonstrated above. Discussion over whether to include the 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis detail can continue here and it can be re-added to the blurb later if there's consensus. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Amakuru I recommend rephrase it to (something like) this: "All 157 people on board are killed as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 (aircraft involved pictured) crashes shortly after take-off. Ethiopia, Indonesia, China and other countries ground the Boeing 737 MAX 8 model in response to this and the recent Lion Air Flight 610 crash. The current blurb is still problematic in all sorts of ways. There is now no mention of the grounding of the jets which is an important part of the story. Secondly there's no mention of the Indonesian crash which provides the backstory to all of this; without mentioning the context the reader is going wonder why there was/is such a strong reaction to the crash. I will say again that I am okay with mentioning other countries that grounded the plane but it must lead off with Ethiopia taking the lead on it. Ethiopia is the country that is most affected by the crash so it just doesn't make sense to lead off that part of the blurb with any country other than Ethiopia (which it should also be noted was the first country to ground the plane). Syopsis (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * for now. The consensus in this discussion was for inclusion of the plane crash itself, and I'd have thought the deaths of 150 people would be reason enough for a "strong reaction". Currently, as is obvious from the discussions above, there is no firm consensus to include the story of the groundings. That consensus may develop, in which case the extra detail can be added. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) North Korean parliamentary elections

 * Oppose. Although general elections are technically ITNR, the DPRK is an exceptional case as they're not 'elections' in the sense the rest of the world understands the term, but a rubber stamp exercise in which 'voters' approve or disapprove the single pre-selected candidate (and are shot if they disapprove), and in this case the election is to a purely symbolic body with no input into government. &#8209; Iridescent 08:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR. We don't (or at least shouldn't) make judgments about the validity or fairness of a country's elections.  What matters is what independent sources state or cover about this.  If there is not widespread coverage of this(which there may not be) because of its fundamental unfairness and rigged outcome, it should not be posted. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But the blurb should clearly and neutrally state that it is a show election.--- Coffee  and crumbs  09:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that is neutral, but I'm doubting this will be posted so I don't think it will get that far. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the discussion is mostly academic. But it is the majority opinion of the RS therefore that should be what we report.--- Coffee  and crumbs  13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose no updates to the article since 8 March. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for an election to be democratic, there has to be at least two candiates. In this case, there is only one candidate. Voting is compulsory and it is forbidden to not vote for the only candidate. This in not, in any sense of the word, an "election". Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you should speak to the North Koreans or to the sources that describe this event; it isn't for us to judge their elections. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also invoking WP:IAR per Pawnkingthree. Mjroots (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IAR only applies when there is a benefit to the project that a rule is preventing. There is no benefit in excluding this information which might serve to educate people. In any event, the quality is not there. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The rule is that elections are postable, subject to quality. The benefit is keeping this non-election off the main page, even if it was to meet quality requirements. IMvHO, it's time to close this down, per WP:SNOW. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment the only oppose here that's legit is from TRM. The article is terrible. We post the total sham installation of the dictator-for-life in the "P"RC, we can post this one too -- article quality not withstanding. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I'm unclear as to how all the opposers know that every single other election we've ever posted wasn't a sham or affected by corruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IAR - we should not post show elections. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aside from what I state above, posting it would educate people about this who may not be aware. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – A non-election, similar to Soviet 'elections.' – Sca (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Meaningless election, bad article. Spengouli (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is even worse quality than several articles I've tried to have deleted as violations of WP:NOTNEWS / NOTENCYCLOPEDIA. This is a timeline of the press releases of the DPRK.  The current update is unsourced and indistinguishable from white propaganda.  If I thought there were enough secondary sources and neutral editors to do anything that is not embarassing here, I'd suggest a force-merge to 14th Supreme People's Assembly - there simply is not enough content to justify an article on this election, the article on the office is enough. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While its clear that this is not ITN due to the elections being basically a shame, it is still a completely valid encyclopedic article, given we pretty much cover every nation's general elections. --M asem (t) 15:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A shameful sham indeed. – Sca (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per IAR. This event is not an election in the sense that I believe any reasonable person would understand the term and the way I believe it was intended to be understood in our ITNR guideline. The only circumstance in which I might support would be if the election were described in the blurb in unmistakably clear terms as the farce that it is. And that would run afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. I believe the best course is simply to ignore this event on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is this election any more of a farce than the Chinese elections which we routinely post? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * China's too big to ignore. – Sca (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Although in China you do have multiple parties and actually - minimally - votes for other people, see 13th National People's Congress. So the comparison is not completely correct. Regards So  Why  14:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * IAR should not apply since this is ITNR. Those who think ITNR should make an exception for show elections should nominate it as such on the ITNR page. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ITNR fully allows for IAR-type exclusions, as to avoid ITNR being too much rule-making. ITNR only says that a nomination that meets ITNR and meets quality requiremenst should be posted, but that's not a requirement. What we don't want is the ITNC discussion to readdress the broad class of news articles represented by the topic - that is, here we all agree national elections should be posted, but we further agree that while NK's elections technically met that, everyone recognizes these are sham elections in the current situation. --M asem (t) 01:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if everyone recognizes these are sham elections, that doesn't mean everyone agrees this shouldn't be posted. Again (and because this will happen in the future), those who think sham elections should not be posted should suggest it on WT:ITNR. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually did already and was roundly rejected. I respect that decision, but we need to be consistent. Either we judge the validity of elections or we do not. There is no material difference this and the "elections" in Russia, Egypt, Syria, et al.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case I'd say consensus is that all the oppose votes based on this being a sham election shouldn't count. Banedon (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IAR is WP:POLICY and anyone can invoke it. ITNR is a WP:GUIDELINE. No guideline or local discussion pertaining to a guideline can negate policy. If there is a consensus supporting an IAR exception to a given guideline then that's that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "IAR should not apply since this is ITNR" is effectively saying, "You cannot ignore all rules here, because of this rule."-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So ITNR means nothing? If I want to oppose anything, I just drop "IAR" in the comment and my vote has equal weight? IAR says you must be "improving the encyclopedia." We have to stop making this up as we go along.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think that when elections were added to ITNR this is the type of "election" that was envisaged as being automatically newsworthy? This is the perfect type of IAR case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, ITNR is a GUIDELINE. That's it. It's one step above an essay in terms of its authority. That means it is the way we typically do things. It is not carved in stone law. IAR is POLICY. And yes, anyone can invoke IAR in almost any discussion. But the flip side of that coin is that you have to persuade enough of your fellow editors that your IAR argument holds water. Frivolously invoking it tends to produce snarky replies. And FTR I am pretty conservative in approach to it. My view being that invoking IAR should be safe, legal and rare. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not going to either support or oppose here. But I do want to say that this is one of the funniest things I have seen in ITN/C in quite a while. Nsk92 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I might have to bring it up at ITNR. I would improve the article if I had time, but I still am unsure about posting but oppose on the basis that I do not think North Korean "elections" should be included with elections. Most elections are very recurring in that they must happen after a fixed period, and they are newsworthy because World Leaders are important and there is notability for potential new figures and to see what way a country has swayed over the last x years politically. In North Korea, there isn't any actual electing happening, and we all know the outcome, to the point that nobody is particularly concerned when the polling is happening because it might as well not to folk outside of North Korea - and the ones inside don't have Wikipedia. It is, of course, a Thing that is happening and in the news and could give a few people a chuckle, but in the news it is more like a puff piece based on the relevance and importance and significance. If anything notable is said about it, maybe propose again. Or swap the wording to something like "Kim Jong-un will be reelected by a 100% majority in the North Korean parliamentary elections" to add a bit of humor? Kingsif (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is not an election. It is all a scam. A scam we should not dignify with a ITN posting.BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * An electile scam? – Sca (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Oppose. No, just no. Someone needs to have a long talk with about procedure here. We don't dignify propaganda, and that's the end of story. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But we do and we have. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN/C is rife with ITN/R nominations that have been opposed vociferously but have been posted over objections by an admin because "it's ITN/R and the rules are rules". Applying WP:IAR in this instance but not in the other ones is horribly inconsistent. is not incorrect on procedure here. There is a laughable lack of consistency being applied here due to the obvious WP:POV against North Korea. Yes, the election is a sham, but we have posted dozens upon dozens of sham elections. Why are we singling this one out? (WaltCip, logged out) --128.227.165.102 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am opposing this because Wikipedia should not become an adjunct of the DPRK's Ministry of Propaganda. But yeah, for the sake of consistency we should come up with a way of handling events like this and put it into ITNR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about a new category for "Recent Non-Events" – ?? – Sca (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great place for The Boat Race.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2018–19 FIS Alpine Ski World Cup

 * Please check the references I added on this nomination.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we don't need to post until it's over, let's take that time and add some prose.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jed Allan

 * Posted Stephen 22:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

RD: Harry Howell

 * Three sections without a single reference. Stephen 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article has ref issues and needs to be completely restructured.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Tom Ballard (climber)

 * Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Depends on if we believe PlanetMountain.com, which is cited 5 times, is a RS. It seems like it is? But this is worth discussing a little. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Actually, and  of the editors also write for Climbing. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  21:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and readyBabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So after 12 hours, is anyone actually opposing this posting? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like 12 hours is a long time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD:Michael Gielen

 * Support. Seems to be well-sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Covers whole career; nice job with the expansion and referencing over the past day. Marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 19:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Well sourced.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't seem "minimally comprehensive" without a referenced list of the works that actually make him WP:Notable. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He was primarily a conductor? What about the awards? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a "selected works" section which was removed in the cleanup, but probably the main issue here is my lack of familiarity with the subject. Concern withdrawn, thanks Martinevans123. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was combined with a sentence further up and made prose. Go ahead, expand, the facts are all there, I'm not done yet with Jacques Loussier, am tired, and there's real life. He's notable without a single composition. He'd be notable if he had only conducted the premiere of Die Soldaten which everybody thought couldn't be performed, like Tristan in Wagner's time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is now such a list. What else. Did you know that I mentioned him on DYK in 2010? Talk:June Card, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support more than sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 17:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash

 * Oppose rare or not, I wouldn't consider this to be something I'd see in a synopsis of the year's events of note to the English speakers of this planet. Simply doesn't rise to the level of significance ITN should be publishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose pet TRM. Not a worldwide massive story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for lack of direct target article, but it would make a fine "Did you know...". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "lack of direct target article"? It's linked, in bold, in the blurb! Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would hazard a guess that it's because there's no article about the individual nor the case, just the same article we already posted to ITN three and a half years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye. Related to Andy Hill and clearly led to this trial of Andy Hill, but isn't affected by this news about the fate of Andy Hill, just remembered. If Andy Hill doesn't have a bio because he's only notable for one event in 2015, this 2019 event is either non-notable or Andy Hill now warrants a proper biography. Until then, ITN should focus on independently notable subjects. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible that AH could sustain a stand-alone article, maybe even the trial. ATM, neither has, so we are left with the solid B class article on the event (which I intend to take to GA class at the appropriate time). That it was posted when it happened does not prevent it being posted again. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The only notability aspects we appear to have about Andy Hill is anything involved in this crash. And particularly as he has been found not guilty, BLP1E absolutely applies; we would not have an article on him, so the target being the crash is completely fine for ITN. --M asem (t) 19:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind recycling a subject when something affects it. The crash was completely fine here the first time, because it happened. Today, the only difference is that it still happened, but prior to a trial, and that's not much to write home about. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support A solid article, current event, news sources are covering it appropriately. Can't find any reason to keep this off of the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The pilot, notable for a UK aeronautics accident four years ago, has been found not guilty of negligence. Had he been found guilty, or had the accident occurred more recently, this might be ITN material, but given the circumstances mentioned it's not. – Sca (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The crash was already featured in ITN years ago, and the lawsuit is irrelevant for ITN. The Manafort conviction is far more important than this one, and even that is not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support In the news with adequate coverage, and article is pretty good. Davey2116 (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Regretfully since it is in all honesty a local story. But it had received plenty of international coverage which makes it ITN worthy.BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not appearing anywhere for me, not even on bbc.com. This suggests that other people here are seeing it due to tracking of their interests by websites. Also, the acquittal is a complete non-event, with no lasting import. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has now become somewhat regional at BBC News: . Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - lack of significance. If one searches Google for UK news, the top results are (unsurprisingly) about Brexit. Banedon (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carmine Persico

 * Comment - Article is in good shape, but a few sentences are unreferenced. If fixed, I'll be glad to support it.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Normally I'm a "95% is fine" guy on the BLPs, but the unreferenced claims here are exceptionally contentious. Comes with the territory, but this is the business we've chosen.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD:Alí Domínguez

 * I think this is best as an RD as it appears tied to the VZ crisis that is in ongoing already. --M asem (t) 02:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Forgive me if this is insensitive but are there RS showing this person was notable before their death? This nomination would be more convincing if this was an already notable figure who died in an apparent notable manner. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dissident who attempted to expose corruption in Venezuela. Murdered for either that or for trying to bring aid into the country. Make a notability judgement on that yourself, sorry for the article being rather empty and more focused on death right now, I'm working on it. Kingsif (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * CaC has a valid point. If only today we know more about him (despite having beein part of protests in the past), that means the article fails WP:BLP1E. Coverage of his death would still be valid in the VZ ongoing srticles. --M asem (t) 03:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How many Venezuelan journalists could you name? Venezuelan politicians? Look at Guaido - he started a student movement and co-founded a leading political party, but was rarely in the news until January. It's sad the most notable aspect of Dominguez's life could be his death, but that's because he's not one of the hundreds of others killed by repression of the state in recent months: he's a journalist who has been trying to expose corruption, which is what makes him individually more notable than those others (also sad).
 * Also, Dominguez was the leader of a different political party, was beaten for exposing corruption at a university, etc. That's at least three notable things, all in the article at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing the possibility of a blurb. If I am convinced of anything, it is that an RD is not appropriate here and a BLP is not what is called for. Instead, I recommend you rename the article Murder of Alí Domínguez like the Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. You will all remember we blurbed Khasshoggi's murder, and placed it in ongoing before and after. It is possible a person not to be notable themselves but their assasination to be notable and worthy of an ITN blurb. That is my take on this. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t dispute that, but I do feel Dominguez is notable, perhaps not to the level of Khashoggi, but enough to have his own article (which wouldn’t be long enough to warrant split, I feel). And I’m not sure why you compare to Jamal Khashoggi when he also has an article. Kingsif (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "You can lead a horse to water..."--- Coffee  and crumbs  05:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Khashoggi had an article long before the situation with his murder; he was well notable beyond BLP1E. --M asem (t) 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support RD - Which seems sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is not really about the act of murder at the moment. It provides almost no details about it. I'd support disappearance, killing, assassination and death in the title as alternatives to murder. And we get into WP:BLPCRIME territory when the police announce suspects while this article has murder in the title. I don't see any evidence of notability prior to the murder so this is WP:BLP1E in my opinion and needs to be moved to an event title. w umbolo   ^^^  10:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb proposed. Including adding "political leader" - both this job and "journalist exposing corruption" (especially in Venezuela) seem notable IMO, but certainly being the leader of a political faction should make it clear this isn't BLP1E. Kingsif (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BLP1E? Would an article on this guy exist if he'd not been murdered? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not, because he's not as notable as other journalists/politicians (whose large claim to notability is just the job they are in), and the only international news on him is that he was murdered. But the fact that it's international news suggests that he's definitely important. He's not a random person made famous by being killed in a notorious case; he's a famous person whose death is so made notorious. Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Does not rise to the level of significance needed for a blurb. Death blurbs (irrespective of cause) are generally reserved for people of high notability, who by the way, should have article since Wikipedia infancy days or at least several years ago. I would support RD however, and remind us this is not the place to discuss whether the article fails BLP1E test or not, as long as the article exists and without any major content issue, it can be put on RD line. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Further reminder that "this is not the place" is an opinion and not settled consensus. ITNRD allows opposition base on quality, and a violation of policy is a quality concern. There is no policy that requires one with concerns to nom the article for deletion. Further, AfD'ing the article would allow a single editor to delay a posting until stale. Opposing a nom for BLP1E (or GNG, or whatever) allows a more democratic discussion, as the consensus can reject the opinion and post.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, Ammarpad. Probably better as RD, I saw it as blurb because of a wider context that many may not be aware of, which would leave it very out of place with an ITN blurb. Added RD tag. Kingsif (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per Ammarpad. This just does not rise to the level of a blurb and posting one would come perilously close running afoul of WP:RGW. Support RD. With respect to the question of BLP1E raised above I am somewhat sympathetic. Most crime victims don't get their own article. That said the crime itself is unquestionably notable. Perhaps the article could be moved to Murder of Alí Domínguez and modifed to be more oriented on that theme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RD only – Per previous comments re notability. Sca (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: José Pedro Pérez-Llorca

 * Support - Sourced. And ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support short but good enough for RD; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – This seems rather short for one of the authors of the Spanish Constitution. I am sure there is a little more we can say about his career.--- Coffee  and crumbs  18:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Magenta Devine

 * Weak support It's very well referenced, but also very short and scattered. Seems like a chronological list of whatever random facts one could find about her, without much thought given to narrative.  Still, I won't hold it up over that.  If there's a line to cross, this one made it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it is a little random but then having sort-of followed Devine's career from the get-go and that's probably a good word to describe it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Stephen, can someone post the credits. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keith Harvey Miller

 * Support Everything looks OK. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indeed, satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Once again, this little group of editors is out to prove themselves to be a walled garden devoted to pushing the POV that cherry-picking a source and putting lipstick on a pig merely to collect a hat somehow equates to "article quality". I'm on my lunch break and won't have time to search further resources until later, so I hope this suffices.  For starters, the article title itself is based on cherry-picking a source and is hardly reflective of anything having to do with WP:COMMONNAME.  The article is full of glaring omissions: no mention of his fairly extensive professional career prior to entering politics, no mention that he served in both houses of the state legislature despite the fact that we treat those as notable offices everywhere else on the encyclopedia, no mention of the first lady despite the fact that they were married for over 20 years, no mention of the fact that he wrote at least two autobiographies.  Should I go on?  The statement that he moved to Talkeetna in 1946 can be easily contradicted by other sources.  Who do you think we should trust, a newspaper reporter who is unnamed in the article and is solely interested in banging out a certain amount of content to meet a deadline, or someone like R. N. DeArmond who was the preeminent historian on Alaska during the 20th century and who spent decades researching and writing on the topic of Alaskan political biography?  Like I said, I will have to confirm this later, but I'm quite certain that DeArmond and other more reliable sources stated that Miller moved to Alaska in 1959 and later lived in Talkeetna for a very short time.  The article also misleads people into  believing that Miller continuously remained in Alaska after moving here when in fact he spent most of his retirement years living in southwestern Oregon.  Also, I'm personally a big fan of Must Read Alaska but IT'S A BLOG, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.  There are tons of other actual reliable sources that are being ignored here.  Why?  WP:AGF shouldn't be used to excuse away what amounts to the blind leading the blind. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  21:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't take your assault on me as a personal attack, but if you really want to make this a better place, your current approach is not collegiate and frankly offensive. I'm not here to collect any hats, you need to strike that really.  Feel free to improve the article, feel free to register your opposition, but do not make false accusations and cast aspersions against good faith editors.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing ready. Article has insufficient coverage of Miller, and it sounds like errors per above.  Spencer T• C 21:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * & : I understand the concerns, so I tried my best at expanding the article as much as I could with sources. I added a bit more info on early life, early career and later career. If there's more info that could be added (with reliable sources) please feel free to add them to the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to continue this at the article or its talk page, especially since I was able to have copies of Who's Who in Alaskan Politics and Prudhoe Bay Governor in hand before starting. Just one more thing about weak sources: why do people keep pushing legacy.com as a reliable source?  It may be OK for certain basic facts, but there's nothing neutral about a paid obituary whose editorial process favors the interests of the party paying for the obituary.  Understanding that should be Common Sense 101.  I've seen multiple cases of obituaries on that site which told me absolutely nothing about the person's life because the family decided to use it as an anti-bullying PSA instead of an actual obituary. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  02:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * & : Article has been expanded with good sources thanks to RadioKAOS and I think its good enough to post, but the article will continue to undergo expansion. On the Legacy note, the one used for this article was also co-published with Anchorage Daily News (a reliable source from my knowledge) therefore good source. However I do encourage your book sources as their very beneficial for the article and I applaud you for implementing them in the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 05:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacques Loussier

 * Comment I suspect Catalogue numbers alone are not deemed to be sufficient, even for albums that might have an article. But not a very big article, so shouldn't be too difficult to provide sources for everything. Only 11 sources at Jaques Loussier and none for the Discography. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Around half of the recordings have a decent ref now. What do people here think abou AllMusic, Discogs and WorldCat for refs, - the latter two in the article, one in external refs, the other in authority control? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * AllMusic is fine. Discogs is not allowed (except as a general External link, it seems). I think WorldCat is generally allowed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Worldcat is now there for most, and I don't even think we need the others, but can check out Allmusic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, recordings needs inline refs and there's a section (Trio break-up) without any inline citation, including some "allegedly" claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care for that section, that's probably why I didn't find a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM, the section is back with a source. Next? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support All issues appear resolved. The article is very well referenced. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The "quality control department" will no doubt remind us that there are 7 albums with no source no albums unsourced. I searched for all with limited success. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean anyone seeking to comply with WP:V, a Wikipedia-wide policy? I hope so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Crumbs. You read my mind there. Spooky. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support All issues appear resolved. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chu Shijian

 * Support Nice work.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) MMR vaccine and autism

 * Comment: Your 'news sources' don't currently seem to be to proper 'news' sources (such as newspapers, TV news, etc) - one is a scientific journal article, and the other seems to be a statement by the institute that produced the study. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Googling for "MMR vaccine" and searching by "news" finds plenty of coverage, e.g.  . Banedon (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose trivial at best, but would definitely fit well for a DYK nomination. 2607:FCC8:B085:7F00:7004:D6F9:203:1EB6 (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A common medical fringe theory is suggested to be wrong by an otherwise pretty hefty study in one country. Not ITN-breaking type story. --M asem (t) 05:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This is in the news worldwide, see NYT (US), CTV (Canada), France24 and many others. And we'll perform a public service by helping to debunk the anti-vaxx nonsense. -Zanhe (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , ITN isn't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality and significance. I'm failing to locate the update to reflect this news. Also, though the repetition principle is important in scientific research, each subsequent replication is not itself noteworthy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unsee this on major news sites now (Guardian story is a couple days old), and per Masem this issue seems beyond the pale of even semi-literate Eng.-lang. discourse. Sca (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose More confirmation for something that's been well-established in the literature for a while now.  Spencer T• C 15:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose What next? Study finds earth is not flat. --Suraj.sharma.1992 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, we could use that study again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(Pulled) Arata Isozaki; Pritzker Architecture Prize

 * Support bold prize list until someone expert can address Isozaki's article. As per just about every year, the list article (a FL) is updated well, while the target architect article is lame.  The Rambling Man (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Isozaki's article is not up to scratch, and we shoot down other awards whose article is simply a table of winners (featured list or not). --LaserLegs (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM's suggestion as the bio is a way off. It is slightly strange to post a blurb and not bold what would seem an obvious target article, but the Fields Medal blurb was posted last August where only 2 of the 4 recipients were originally bolded, which is far more strange as it implied the bolded mathematicians were more significant. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted with bold award Stephen 04:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say pull because I don't think it should be, but LaserLegs is right. We regularly refuse to post sports ITNRs that have far more substantial updates than this. —Cryptic 04:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the winning work should be required as part of ITNR.  Sounder Bruce  05:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The award is for his body of work. It’s a featured list article, not sure what else there is to update other than the award of the prize?  It’s not the Oscars. Stephen 08:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The award is for his body of work, that's what needs to be highlighted, and right now it's an unreferecned list in a barely-above-stub article. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think it's bad form for us to shrug off the quality problems of the person recognized for this annual award and just use the FL of the list of winners as the "target". Yes, Isozaki's article is bad, but it doesn't look so far off to expect improvement in the next few days. --M asem  (t) 05:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The whole point of the MP is to focus attention on quality articles and updates. If the update is a name on a chart, that is not worth featuring.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question So we now have a BLP violation linked from the main page, but it's not a bold link, so that's good enough? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main page routinely links BLP violations, for your information. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine some "other sections" do it more often than others. Thanks TRM, it's something we should endeavor to fix but not a hill to die on. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull. Arata Isozaki needs to be the target article, not the award, as is done for awards of this caliber posted to ITN.  Spencer T• C 15:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pull this.
 * a) ITNR explicitly states that the awardee is the target. Arata Isozaki at minimum needs more referencing to his works and awards.
 * b) This is ITN, not TFL. We don't post one sentence article updates on ITN blurbs, yet we now post one line table updates instead?
 * c) Please someone show me where the consensus is to post if you're using it to override ITNR. And if you're relying on the counting !votes, note the conflict of interest.
 * d) It doesn't look good to use IAR to circumvent ITN criteria in order to get a FL back on the main page less than three weeks since it last appeared there.
 * I'd prefer we stop using strawmen excuses to get something up asap (5 hours much?), instead of helping improve other articles. Fuebaey (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pulled per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: King Kong Bundy

 * Oppose A lot of sources, but there are at least three whole paragraphs and a further large number of statements that lack citations. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comprehensive, but needs referencing.  Spencer T• C 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comprehensive, but needs referencing.  Spencer T• C 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Juan Corona

 * Oppose Some unreferenced parts of the article, such as Juan_Corona as well as a quote.  Spencer T• C 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose multiple [citation needed] tags on this BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Art Hughes (Canadian soccer player)

 * Support Everything looks good. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Incomplete coverage of the subject's life, particularly in Art_Hughes_(Canadian_soccer_player). Only 1 single sentence about his life after 1960 up until his death in 2019.  Spencer T• C 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take a second look. I think the notable period spanning 17 years of his soccer career are sufficiently mentioned. I have also add a couple of sentences about this personal life and reorganized the page a bit. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose stricken; thanks for your work in improving the article. I guess my concern is that if he was known for goalscoring, the article would talk about games in which he had a decisive goal (or goals for the national team). Some of the information in the intro could definitely be moved to the "Career" section as well. At the same time, it seems like the information for that may be a lot harder to come by or not exist. For some it may meet minimum standards, but I think our RD articles should have more meat to them: to me, much of the article seems like the Honours section written out in prose. I think that's a good starting point, but to me what makes an RD article of minimum standards worthy of posting is having a little bit more than that. Best,  Spencer T• C 03:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For an example of what this could look like, the Eric Caldow article nominated below is a good example of what I would consider minimal standards for RD.  Spencer T• C 21:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support acknowledging Spencer's concern, but this just about passes the line for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support meets minimum RD requirements; marked as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still ready --DannyS712 (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Klaus Kinkel

 * I boldly added myself to the updaters, - remove if I did too little. Meant to nominate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. Good work on references, Gerda et al. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Johnny Romano

 * Support - Well sourced.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine to me. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ted Lindsay

 * Oppose large swaths of text have no obvious reference or source. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ref improve tagged, and what's going on with the refs that are there??! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per TRM, what is going on with those refs? Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luke Perry
*Oppose vast amounts of the article uncited. Looks OK now. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. "-ographies" are not sourced (and see relevant discussion on WT:ITN related to these). --M asem (t) 18:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, woefully under referenced. Spengouli (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ref improve tagged. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite there, but much improved.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I'm a Wikipedia neophyte and I'm certainly not a fan of Luke Perry, but I want to point out that in my opinion, Wikipedia holds itself forth as a news source by having a prominent feature of the front page called "in the news," and as such, it is very out of touch. Here I find a debate about whether to merely MENTION this celebrity's death centered on the quality of citations in his article.  Surprising.  The underlying philosophy of the front page is mystifying to me; where can I look to find an explanation of this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellodont (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can read about the purpose of ITN at WP:ITN. In short, ITN is not meant to be a continuously updated news feed, but a means to improve and promote articles about subjects that happen to be in the news.  Recent deaths are presumed notable enough to post to the Recent Deaths line, but the quality of the article and update must be acceptable in order to post it. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is per WP:ITNRD, point 3, Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters.  Kees08  (Talk)   11:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Reasonably complete AFAICT, lots of cites, no more maint tags. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I believe I fixed all the ref issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support His death is all over the news, at least in the U.S. The article seems fine and has plenty of citations. PerhapsXarb (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing has been much improved. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above.BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * by User:Paul Erik --DannyS712 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Sudanese protests

 * Remove stale article, stale news. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed, no substantial updates for several days. --Tone 16:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Keith Flint

 * Support, I've added citations so most of the article is now referenced. I saw the Prodigy at the 1997 V Festival in Chelmsford (although I only stayed for the first few songs) and the sight of them doing "Smack My Bitch Up" to tens of thousands of people is probably something I'll never see again. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was at the Leeds version of that (the only year that V had a Leeds show, I think, before it went to Weston Park). It was, indeed, mayhem. Black Kite (talk) 1:08 pm, Today (UTC+0)


 * Support RIP Keef. A seminal loss, albeit in a quirky sense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. I would also be fine with blurbing the death at 49 of an artist with seven #1 albums.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a chance, he wasn't transformative, but he did define a micro-genre in the acid house period. Couldn't dance, couldn't sing, but dominated tens of thousands of fans when performing live.  A "legend" (especially to those of us who own every single piece of music he was ever involved in) but not a blurb.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to beat this drum, but I meant the other criteria -- not transformative, but unexpected (at 49, no known illness) death of prominent (the seven #1s) figures.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am not a reliable source, but in summer 1997 I recall the Prodigy were the biggest band in the UK, and quite possibly the world and The Fat of the Land was number one both sides of the Atlantic and was universally critically praised. That's pretty much mainstream success. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In Canada, "Breathe" was hot enough to open up Big Shiny Tunes 2, back when things like alternative music and track order still mattered to young people. But "Firestarter" was only a distant second to that, and I can't name another one despite being reasonably hip and with it (at the time). In fairness, "Breathe" was catchy enough to never leave, so no real need to follow it up with anything. Same deal happened with Blur and (to a lesser extent) The Chemical Brothers. Light years beyond Wide Mouth Mason and Bran Van 3000, but by lofty all-time British invasion standards, not even "in the mix".
 * As for US air that year, they were up against the single most popular riff Sting ever wrote, fueled by the somber power of recent celebrity death and nostalgia. Then Elton John made even that sound upbeat with his mournful English candlewailing. Even before then, when hot was still cool, America and Canada both generally preferred their spastic movements and vapid lyrics come from the Spice Girls. We even mostly remembered their names (eventually), which I don't think is the case with the guy from Prodigy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To be fair and I imagine Keith would have been honest about it too, he didn't really write any of those seven number one albums, he was a performer, a front man, but not a Lennon or McCartney for the outfit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SupportRD. Article is referenced including the discography. However, I do not support a blurb as Liam Howlett was the band leader of the Prodigy. Capitalistroadster (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious support and a sorry one at that; I could see a blurb, personally, as if not a leader then probably the best well-known/iconic. But not important. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think only fans knew Liam was "the brains behind the operation"; to the man in the street, The Prodigy was defined by the scary looking bloke doing a mad dance and shouting in Aldwych tube station. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

--Tone 13:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Post posting oppose blurb since some people seem to be suggesting it above; I'll be willing to bet a tidy sum that in almost all tomorrow's papers on both sides of the Atlantic Flint is relegated to a small sidebar beside a giant photograph of Luke Perry. The Prodigy were influential for a brief period to a particular generation but we're not talking the Fall here, let alone the Beatles. &#8209; Iridescent 20:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since a blurb was only mentioned briefly and only RD was posted, your comment is redundant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion of a blurb can and often does continue after a RD is posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't know Flint had passed until I saw it in the box today. This is why I wanted to reform ITN/DC. Thanks to everyone involved who turned the article around to get it MP ready. It's great when the system works. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Caldow

 * Weak oppose penultimate para of bio is unreferenced. The rest is just about satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced the paragraph mentioned by TRM.  Spencer T• C 21:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Estonian parliamentary election

 * Oppose The articles are not ready. But I have suggested some blurbs. This is very news worthy but let's fix the articles. If we want Blurb1, we have to wait for the formation of a new government which I suspect is imminent.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Commentary - I've been watching this article for sometime now waiting for something to happen. I didn't nominate it exactly because nothing did happen yet. Blurb1 is not true. Altblurb is not news worthy.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Waiting for what? The results are in, and they are ITNR. Only the quality of the article is up for discussion. Established consensus is that we post the election, not the formation of a government.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a chart farm, with stub-level text if we remove all the tables. Would need a massive expansion with full referencing to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Disappearance of Tom Ballard and Daniele Nardi

 * Oppose We should treat this like that recent footballer that died in a plane crash but wasn't affirmed until weeks later. If they find them alive (even if that requires a difficult rescue effort) or end up stating they are dead, that would be the point of posting. --M asem (t) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, this would be fine as a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake (first time ITN nom) - misunderstood the nature of Ongoing, tagged it as the events are still unfolding. Have now removed Ongoing tag and as if by magic the first (longer) blurb appears. d'oh.  PeaBrainC (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're fine, honestly it's not a hard and fast rule one way or the other. If ten other people come and support for ongoing, that's where it'll go. Welcome to ITN! --LaserLegs (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose both ongoing and blurb on lack of general significance. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose may be more suitable for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like consensus is against posting this to "In The News" but since the article is new, you may find support at WP:DYK "Did You Know". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Tornado outbreak of March 3, 2019

 * Weak oppose It's spring, tornados in this part of the US are common. --M asem (t) 05:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tornadoes are certainly common, but tornado outbreaks that cause 23 deaths? That's pretty rare. Also deadliest natural disaster in the US since the hurricane season. Edit: deadliest tornado outbreak since 2014. Alex of Canada (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Deadliest tornado outbreak in the US since 2014. The article is relatively small, but it's likely to improve as more information breaks. Alex of Canada (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question is this how we name such outbreaks? No indication in the title of any geographical context whatsoever?  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently yes. See: Tornado outbreak of May 7–10, 2016, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 22–26, 2016, Tornado outbreak of April 27–30, 2014, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011.--SirEdimon (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been moved to Alabama/Georgia tornado outbreak of March 3, 2019. Is it better? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better, it begs the question why all the other articles aren't named similarly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good move. @TRM, I always assumed titles avoided geographic specifications due to the possibility of a tornado covering multiple states and so making the title bulbous and unwieldy. But this certainly works. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * convention in WP:SEVERE is to keep titles to just dates unless it has a widely accepted name (such as the 2011 Super Outbreak). It avoids the issue of giving too much weight to some areas and keeps the title neutral. In this case, calling it the "Alabama/Georgia" outbreak no longer applies as multiple tornadoes have been confirmed in Florida. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if it's going to claim 12 tornadoes, it needs to list 12 tornadoes with refs (or do a content fork for the list of storms until they can get references). Would benefit from a paragraph of prose about the EF3 which killed 23. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Phrasing in the the "Casualties" section seems like it would age out very quickly ("wait for morning" and "currently"). This assumes/requires someone will update it within the next few hours which may not happen. Are there any style guidelines on avoiding this?   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose perhaps the most deadly tornado outbreak since 14, but still pales behind other recent natural disasters. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Multiple tornadoes killing 23 aren't "common." (Reuters says toll likely to rise.) Alt1 offered above. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks of proper quality and properly referenced, it happened recently, and the news covered it appropriately. Checks all of the right boxes for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would suggest rewording the blurb to indicate all the fatalities are from a single tornado in Alabama rather than from the event collectively. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with Cyclonebiskit's suggested change. Spengouli (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, per suggestions, I have created another blurb. Would suggest Alt2 be posted based on the several suggestions here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. Significant coverage and unusual death toll. Teemu08 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt3, offered above as simplified version of Alt2, dispensing with "outbreak," which sounds more like an outbreak of measles, the flu, etc. – Sca (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2. Tornado outbreaks are what they are called.  Nihlus  01:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't recall encountering this usage, but ... meh. Sca (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Uncommon disaster with high death toll. -Zanhe (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nathaniel Taylor (actor)

 * Support - Good enough.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Sourced and went from Stub Class to Start Class. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , nice work &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Werner Schneyder

 * Support Looks to be in decent shape. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Recordings section completely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am tired. I referenced the LPs, and commented out the others. Anybody could have done that (or comment out the section completely. It's there in German, of course). Authority control is a blessing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an ongoing discussion about forking off things like unreferenced discographies on the talk page. Commenting stuff out just to get it onto RD is considered bad form. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I now sourced most of the CDs. Three missing, but I can't keep my eyes open any longer. Anybody can find the three if needed. - These are CDs of spoken German, rather not essential for the English Wikipedia, I'd say. - I am still not over Previn. Unvelievable that we gave Pell prominence for several days, instead. - Get to RD what readers should know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I think I fixed the last few refs issues. For me, it's good to go. Great job by Gerda Arendt.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francisco Macri

 * Weak support refs are a mess but at least allow verifiability of the facts (for the time being). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have reformatted some of the refs. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Page name is "Franco", also gives "Francesco". I do not find "Francisco" anywhere. 72.94.18.179 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article was moved after this was posted. I've updated it &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ogden Reid

 * Support This is ready to go. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Laws of the Game changes

 * Oppose seems like 1) routine (rules of professional sports are frequently changed between seasons to tweak the game) and 2) relatively trivial (a rarely occuring scoring mechanism highlighting the changes on the sources reporting it). --M asem (t) 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted above, routine and trivial. If they were going to allow mixed teams, or play until someone scored ten goals or add two extra goals at each end, it'd be worth considering, but this is tinkering around the edges. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is ultra-minor tinkering to bring the official rules into line with what 99.9% of the world already thought they were. To be honest, I don't think this should even be listed as a "notable amendment" on the article. &#8209; Iridescent 20:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose So you can't use your hand in football? Thanks for clearing that up.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Yannis Behrakis

 * Oppose. A large paragraph of text is unreferenced as is the Awards section. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor article, lacking refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) SpaceX Dragon 2

 * Comment – I'd say unmanned test flights don't usually warrant posting. – Sca (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But I would assume that this planned July one would probably merit something? Still outside ITNR but would be a major feat still... --M asem (t) 16:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Needs some refs, then strong support this obviously notable milestone of the first flight of a new spacecraft. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – If any flight in the Commercial Crew Development program should be featured, it should be the Crew Dragon Demo-2 and Boeing Crew Flight Test later this year. Those flights will actually be historic, as it will have the first astronauts on American spacecraft for the first time in eight years. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 18:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question if this is the first test flight of the vessel, wouldn't this be ITNR? Banedon (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Questionable, as this is just the SpaceX Dragon with slightly larger windows and redesigned solar panels, rather than a new design per se. Since aside from genuinely routine missions like ISS resupply flights every spacecraft is configured differently to suit the mission profile, what you're proposing would essentially make every satellite launch where the satellite is an unusual shape or mass, or every time Boeing tests a new variant of the 787, ITNR. &#8209; Iridescent 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd support a new variant of the 737 or A320 TBH, it's not at all routine --LaserLegs (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could support the nomination, but not the ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Iridescent, I didn't propose anything. I asked a question. Also, oppose per Iridescent. Banedon (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out before, the ITNR for Space Exploration is a bit of a dumpster fire. OTOH, it's not like we're plagued with nominations on this front. Posting the biggest news rocketry once a quarter is fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support The news is sufficiently covering this, and the article is fairly decent, but that article doesn't have much of an update on the current mission; only to note that it happened and the date. I'd like to see the information on this specific launch expanded in the target/bolded article, but otherwise this looks good to go.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Zhores Alferov

 * So many awards/honors need citation. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katherine Helmond

 * Support No concerns jumping out.  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weakest oppose the Emmy nominations &c. are not completely verifiable from the sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man I have added the refs for Emmy noms and Golden Globes. Please see if you can support now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  05:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support you got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)