Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 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: Mariss Jansons

 * Support Not perfect (just a couple of unsourced statements; "recordings" section needs expansion and cites) but otherwise, it's good enough. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  22:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks generally good. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I updated some, and added the Guardian obituary which could add some soul to the article. I'm too tired right now. All recordings have numbers, btw. - I was at the opera, and his death was The Talk in intermission. Let's please not wait too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support No red flags. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support In good shape. Spengouli (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) London Bridge attack

 * Oppose relatively small potatoes in the big scheme of "terror" attacks. Sure, it made a few waves, but the Met Police were on the scene in minutes, unarmed members of the British public ran towards the danger to help, and that was that.  Tomorrow, London will be the same, stoic and resilient as it has been for decades.  RIP the two innocent citizens. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The police being omnipresent is kind of a hallmark of the UK, and London doesn't often see terror attacks, though. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we have a lot of police on the streets of London, but then more than 10 million people live there so I guess you'd expect that. And London has had more than its fair share of terror attacks over the past fifty years.  It didn't just start after 9/11. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nowhere near the scale of what would be a significant attack (like the bridge attack a few years back). --M asem (t) 19:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a routine occurrence in the UK which will continue until meaningful knife control laws are implemented --LaserLegs (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "knife control laws" means here. It's illegal to carry a knife in the UK, just like it's legal to carry a gun in the US.  If this guy had a gun, he'd have killed dozens.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey,, perhaps you could make comments about knife control in the Netherlands next? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotta nominate it first. It's just as unlawful to commit gun murder in the USA as it is to commit knife and vehicle murder in the UK but until something is done to control these lethal implements psychotic mass killings with knives and vans (or "lorrys") will continue unabated. It's sad, maybe, but so routine as to not warrant posting on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Black Kite nailed it somewhat below, so I'll let it go here.  Your analogy is invalid,  as you know, but good luck with getting anyone to buy into it!   Ciao! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Say what? Since when are terrorist attacks a routine occurrence in the UK? 49 TL   20:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of the IRA? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Regardless of LaserLegs' impressively dimwitted oppose above (UK knife deaths 2018 = 285, US kinfe deaths 2018 = 1,515 ... but US gun deaths 2018 = 39,773), this is probably not rising to the level of ITN. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mercifully low death toll so not as significant as the 2017 attacks.P-K3 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above with exception to LaserLegs' oppose which is one of the more sillier political statements I've seen on ITN. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Burning Sun scandal

 * Support This definitely an unique case. Article is very good, and sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Celebrity sex scandals are usually not suitable for ITN, but this does seem to be an unusual case, ties into a wider social issue in South Korea, and has an extremely well-developed article. The article quality tips me over into supporting this. Modest Genius talk 17:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support per Modest Genius. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose with respect to those above, the blurb gives no-one any indication of what makes this in any way more notable than any other "celebrity" being sent to prison for any kind of crime. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded blurb to give some context based on what reading the lead of the scandal article suggests. If it's inaccurate, then that's because the lead does not concisely get to the point... Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point. I expected to oppose until I read through. The lead could be cleared. I think that alt blurb is too long. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support and propose ALT2 which mentions they were also jailed for rape (see the sources), while linking to Hidden cameras crime in South Korea. ALT2 is also shorter than ALT1.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - what do you think about ALT2?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BLP errors in ALT and ALT2 Only one person was guilty for making and sharing the video. Both were guilty of rape.—Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - the existence of and/or in ALT2 prevents a BLP violation, and while it is not optimum, it is the most succinct way to represent the current situation. I welcome better suggestions.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Criticism of the and/or construct aside, we shouldn't make it vague which crimes a specific person committed just to shorten a blurb. They are both guilty of rape. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems WP:UNDUE to have the blurb centered around the Burning Sun scandal, when that is more about crimes regarding the nightclub. These convictions came from an offshoot of that investigation. Seems that coverage of the sentencing is more about the larger South Korea problem of spycams: It is the highest-profile example of an epidemic of spycam crimes in South Korea ... Perhaps centering around Hidden cameras crime in South Korea might work, but the article is not sufficiently updated (yet).—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something like this- Burning Sun itself is too small, but the conviction may represent the Right Time To Post™ something on the overarching sex crime epidemic/atmosphere in K-Pop. Is it a stretch to tie this to Goo Hara (and to a lesser extent Sulli?  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's this from The Washington Post and probably others.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Barely a blip on the radar. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the Rambling Man. I don't see how this is more significant than celebrities being sent to prison. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is significant. You don't see celebrities or white-collar individuals in general get sent to prison nowadays. Even Felicity Huffman, who got convicted of fraud, managed to worm her way out of prison time. WaltCip (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Huffman spent a short time in prison. Stephen 21:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ten days. WaltCip (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - I presume you’re from Korea - then you should be aware of #MeToo’s equivalent in Korea, hidden camera sex crimes (including Hara), and the significance of Kpop, all of which this story is tied in to.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment We posted Bill Cosby found guilty of sexual assault and that South African with no legs who murdered is girlfriend was in the box like a thousand times, so I don't see why we couldn't post this as well. I don't care, so I didn't read it to look for BLP vios, so this is not a support. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca (and we should not have posted Bill Cosby or the South African with no legs who murdered his girlfriend (Oscar Pistorius)). Banedon (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should not be posting what is basically tabloid crime news, even if it has garnered some sensationalist coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. Lepricavark (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yasuhiro Nakasone

 * Comment Some ref problems: CN's and I've encountered (and fixed) a few dead links on spot check. Doable.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weakest oppose just a bare minimum of citations needed now for the BLP, what's there is mainly fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Missing citations added 46.7.236.180 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - Nakasone was a transformative (and controversial) leader who presided over Japan's golden era in the 1980s, often compared to his contemporaries Reagan and Thatcher. And he also happened to be the world's longest-living former head of state until now. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – RD only. No blurb. Article seems adequate. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion in RD. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Uruguayan general election

 * Comment: Needs a prose update in the results.  Spencer T• C 02:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support everything there seems satis, but per Spencer, it's a pity there's not a single scrap of prose describing the results, reactions to the results etc. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support No problems except for the lack of prose on the results. Taewangkorea (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt blurb III. Some prose about the runoff results added. Also updated with final vote tally from 30 Nov.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ciputra

 * Support - Everything is in order. STSC (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like it might need a copyvio check. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a serious charge to be cast about willy nilly. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your comment to imply that the article has reached a professional-level quality, so thanks for your complement. And thank you for conducting a copyvio check. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was reading on mobile and felt that the career section read more professional than the rest, then noticed it was entirely cited to one source - unable to do a check myself, I suggested it, as a comment rather than an oppose because of pure questioning. Take this as support.Kingsif (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, sounds like a reasonable concern. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – I have done a copyvio check and see no issues of plagiarism. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – seems good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William Ruckelshaus

 * Needs more sources. The Saturday Night Massacre section is unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose whole sections without a single ref. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There're some unsourced contents. STSC (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support - OK now. STSC (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ping me if the issues are solved.BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose need more refs, but will support after the issues are solved. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The issues have been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing looks good now.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support based on improvements. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted just in time to prevent it from going stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

RD: Jonathan Miller

 * Weak Support that is conditional on more citations being added. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose whole sections and paragraphs without reference. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Clive James

 * Oppose. With regret, too much unsourced. He certainly deserves to be posted. Very notable personality in UK. A lot of good work there by User:Johndavies837. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Very undersourced. It'd be like moving a mountain to source all of that in due time. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno, he's a very well known figure in the UK and the death was only announced today, so could be considered under Nov 27. Once the obituaries come out there will be plenty of sources available.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Died 24 Nov, announced 27 Nov, so moved to today. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support - additional Australian ref - Clive James — writer, TV broadcaster and critic — dies aged 80 - one of our most famous expats Bahudhara (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – We have ignored even more notable people because the article lacks proper sourcing. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is now much improved, but Bibliography still needs a lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The proliferation of tags in the article is worse than Margarita Pracatan's aural assault on "Helooooooooo". Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   17:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose...for the time being. I liked him, but don't have time to help clearing the CNs. STSC (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it appears not many people are able to clean up the CNs. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that very many are able, but very few seem to be ready or willing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Sourcing now looks ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Albania earthquake

 * Support Short but well composed article, death toll somewhat larger than expected for that part of the world. Updated blurb with casualty numbers from the article.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A well referenced article about a notable event. --Λeternus (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This was one of the strongest and deadliest tremors in the region for years. Media still focus their attention on the aftermath and international aid sent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Godfrey Gao

 * Support - Career section could be expanded, but Filmography section is well cited, so looks good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've fleshed out the biographical information in the article some more. Morgan695 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see any major problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well developed. -Zanhe (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yeshi Dhonden

 * Weak Support - Article is cited very well but it is close to a stub ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is short, but concised. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support No major problems but the article can certainly be expanded. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sudhir Dar

 * Weak support some additional references in the Books section would be helpful, the rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Just did a whole-article CE. There is one statement commented out, which I couldn't find a source for, but I think this is good enough.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Rhodes

 * Note I think this is pretty much cited now. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now that some citations have been added. Thanks Black Kite! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Georgian protests

 * Oppose I have read the article twice and have no idea what is going on. Also I have no sense that these are massive demonstrations of the sort we may cover as opposed to the relatively run of the mill, which we do not. The article is confusing and I am not even certain that anything of significance is still going on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This cannot possibly go to Ongoing, because the protests have ended. The article is terrible, and does not portray events chronologically. It's discussing things from June under Reactions to protests which ended two weeks ago. The format of the article suggests that it was, or might have been, an election article that got COATRACKED into it's current form. Additionally, I check Russian language media outside of Russia and found nothing about this.130.233.2.197 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both per above and because the article barely mentions protests that are currently happening (i.e. in the news) ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's quite OK to me. STSC (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose before making a judgment on if it's ITN-worthy, the article would need significant improvements. The first being that the list of 'lead figures' in the infobox is longer than the list of refs. Kingsif (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the myriad concerns. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Hong Kong protests

 * Reason for renomination? It was likely removed because of the similar election article.  Nixinova  T C</b> </b>  22:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * They're different articles. Related because they're different aspects of the same story, but still separate. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. I think having the blurb about the election is enough. Once that is about to get bumped off of ITN, I think the protests should be readded to Ongoing and a conversation opened up about whether it should be taken down. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 00:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Having the blurb is sufficient.--WaltCip (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb should be modified so that the protest article is included in it, for context. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated election blurb to include link to protests.  Spencer T• C 01:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoring to ongoing once the blurb, which is now second from the bottom, rolls off. Davey2116 (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article had not been "continuously updated" as stipulated by WP:ITN for some time, instead getting sporadic, non-specific one sentence updates like "On 2 November, a mostly peaceful but unapproved election gathering at Victoria Park saw police quickly responding by employing tear gas". The election is a good to transition this off the main page. If you want to nominate a different article then fine but this one is a no-go for me.--LaserLegs (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the current blurb falls off the main page. Then reassess and renominate if it looks justified. My guess is that we have not heard the last of this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem that LaserLegs mentions is very real. While this event is indeed in the news, the updates are very poor and serve more to keep the article in Ongoing than to inform the reader. Nearly all of the updates can be called "crime blotter" or "routine protest events". Crime in Chicago likely impacts the lives of English Wikipedia readers more, generates more deaths and political frustration than this event, and yet we don't update the article with meticulous details and perma-post it to the Main Page. Because ITN is not a news ticker, and we apply some editorial discretion about "what is encyclopedic" when posting. Additionally, the article is plagued by UNDUE and BIAS, and my own efforts to get clear BLP violations fixed revealed an recalcitrant and entrenched editor clique. The best thing that ITN can do for this event is to blurb genuinely notable developments.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I am opposed to putting this item back on the ongoing ticker, the above rationale is utter nonsense. The Hong Kong protests and shootings in Chicago are nowhere near on the same level of international importance.--WaltCip (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Crime in Chicago is much more than shooting. Name a nationality or ethnicity, it likely has a gang (often several) making millions through bookmaking, extortion, prostitution, robbery, drug dealing, smuggling and tax evasion, much of which depends on foreign events, dossiers, hookers, tourists, drugs, animals and banks. A lot of that money goes a lot of places, including Hong Kong. You ever hear of Al Capone? So has everyone. His outfit's still very ongoing, too, and will be when Jimmy Sham's game is over and maybe remembered in a few online documentaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to see Crime in Chicago in the box then nominate it. This is about Hong Kong, and while the Chicago comparison may be debatable, everything else the IP said is spot on. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It was removed for a reason, just leave it that way. STSC (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly inappropriate for ongoing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Biondi

 * Support Looks good to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Small article but is cited well ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I only looked briefly at this, a couple of unsourced items. It might be better to expand it first and cite it, rather than promote it and let it get expanded with unsourced material. Feel very not strongly about it and barely looked at the article, just a note.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I see no problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Dresden heist

 * Support Interesting, has expansive coverage, and the article is in pretty good shape. Teemu08 (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support shocking heist, widely reported. -Zanhe (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly related to the latest Rick & Morty episode. (j/c - noteworthy theft, article up to par). --M asem (t) 05:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I am not typically a big fan of crime related nominations, but this is highly unusual on multiple levels. The article looks to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is an interesting story and thefts of such valuable items don't occur very often.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support although in my variant of English, we'd just say "... from Dresden Castle ..." rather than "... from the Dresden Castle ..." The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . Tweaked the blurb a bit, to resolve RM's concern above and also to link Dresden Castle. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should also mention/link Grünes Gewölbe or "Green Vault Museum" &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Not an error, but why is the Residenzschloss Dresden pictured while we can picture more precisely Grünes Gewölbe, such as |this or many others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can suggest a modified blurb. Should Green Vault be added to the blurb, should it replace Dresden Castle, etc. I don't have a feel for which is more significant. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not the right one to do that, because I'd always prefer the German names ;) - The Green Vault treasure chamber has an article, is more precise, but I can't tell if it rings the same bells as "Grünes Gewölbe" does in German, where you don't have to add Schloss in Dresden. The schloss is not a castle (German Burg), btw, as any image shows, but I understand common name, even if wrong. I'm out now for most of the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that a better image can be used and have added : to the protected list. I'll have a go at rewording the blurb in due course. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Although our article is titled Dresden Castle, it's not really a castle in the usual English sense but a former palace – in this case, that of the electors and later the kings of Saxony. I'd suggest changing the wording to "are stolen from the former electoral palace in Dresden, Germany." (I don't think either Grünes Gewölbe or "Green Vault" would work for English-language readers.) Danke. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest: Several hundred diamonds and jeweled items are stolen from the Green Vault museum (pictured) in Dresden, Germany. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's better than the current construction. It might be good to insert "priceless" before "diamonds," as that's what museum officials have called them in several stories I read/saw. – Sca (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The image's information suggests it's the Jewel Room (Pretiosen Saal) that was robbed, though I'm not 100% sure. If so, the blurb's caption could be amended. Brandmeistertalk  22:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like Jewel Room might be Juwelenzimmer and not the Pretiosensaal pictured above.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As Gerda says, this is not an error. I'm for retaining the current hook and picture (which I find impressive). Jmar67 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gerda. The theft was carefully planned to be from the Grünes Gewölbe museum, not from the "castle" Residenzschloss Dresden as a whole. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the image and tweaked the blurb accordingly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Martin. I think it looks much better. I'm not sure we've got any contemporary image of the Juwelenzimmer at Commons. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not the kind of place where they allow tourists to take photos ;) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 107th Grey Cup

 * Support - Well cited and nice to see a solid prose summary of the game ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. A well developed article with a good update. Seems fine to me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article details a North American sports championship game, which is in line with other similar featured articles. Includes strong details and summaries. Cmm3 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R, quality is good. -Zanhe (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Andrew Harris being named the game MVP should be sourced and in prose. (Incidentally, he also was named the Most Outstanding Canadian, the first to win both) —Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 06:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted, waiting for image protection before changing the image. Someone else is welcome to add it once it is protected; it may be an hour or so before I can. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Image now changed. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: George Clements
*Weak Support The article is a bit promotional and sounds like a resume. Also, some parts are unsourced. However, I think that they are relatively minor fixes. Taewangkorea (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to Weak Oppose until the issues are fixed. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose CN's need fixing before posting. The many short sections might better be rolled into one large section titled Church initiatives or similar. The lede contains information which is not explained by prose in the article: "He is also well known for his involvement in civil rights activities during a period that extended from the late 1960s to present".130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Colin Mawby

 * Support. Looks well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Seconding Martinevans123's sentiments  ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Marked ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Romanian presidential election

 * Support Very good election article. Cursory looksee of refs looks fine. ITNR.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Article looks well referenced, but I think there could be more prose in the Results section. I've also added an Altblurb as the original seemed a bit bland ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Imperfect, but nothing worth keeping it off the MP.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support both blurbs. No red flags. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 'After failing to receive a majority of votes in the first round' seems an unnecessary detail and an overly negative way of introducing the blurb. The entire clause could be deleted, as could 'in a runoff election'. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the original blurb is considered better, we can switch to that? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that might be best. A run-off election 2 weeks after the first round is not very notable. It seems like the usual course of how elections progress in Romania, looking at the previous years. There has been a second round in every election since 1992. It is nowhere close to what is happening in Israel. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But keep the party as in altblurb2. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like User:Stephen has already done it, whether by reading this or unilaterally &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally. I didn't spot the discussion here. Stephen 02:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I originally posted it to WP:ERRORS, where it would be seen more quickly, but for some reason User:MSGJ moved it here. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Simon

 * Support condition on the 3 citation needed templates being fixed. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I spy one more citation needed template (updating in case anyone was looking to promote)  Kees08  (Talk)   07:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Found a citation for it.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, providing his awards are sourced. Not the most popular fellow in the theater circle.  Jip Orlando (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like this has been addressed.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Ref formatting could use some work  Kees08  (Talk)   07:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong local elections

 * Support Unprecedented turn out with ousting of Pro-Beijing candidates. District Councils: Pre election: 124 seats were held by Pro-democracy members 331 by Pro-Beijing ; After election 389 seats were Pro-democracy 89 Pro-Beijing. "The pro-democrats delivered the biggest landslide in Hong Kong history, seizing control of 17 of the 18 District Councils, tripling their seats from about 124 to 389, and would be able to capture the 117 seats in the Election Committee District Council subsectors which was responsible for electing the Chief Executive." Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as before we don't usually post local elections, but this one is unique in both coverage and significance. The only question is whether to remove the Hong Kong protests from Ongoing with this as a blurb. I think not: they are separate events. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose have we posted HK elections in the past? (I know we've spit venom at other "local elections"). If this is significant because of the protests, then it's covered well enough by the ongoing item which has been sitting in the box for nearly 8 months. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post local elections. This one may be more notable than the average local election, but then on the other hand the Hong Kong protests are already covered in ongoing.  If this is the defining moment in the protests, then I could see posting this, but as of right now there's no sign that this will change anything with regard to the ongoing protests. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Opposeper above. We don't post local elections at ITN. Ongoing should have this covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removing from 'ongoing' and replacing with ALT3 blurb and then afterwards making a determination whether it is still "ongoing". Per the linked NYT story, this was not just a local election, this election took on outsize significance, and was viewed as a referendum on the unrest that has created the city’s worst political crisis in decades. ALT3 blurb suggestion: 2019 Hong Kong local elections result in the biggest landslide in the city's history, with the pro-democracy camp winning 17 out of 18 district council seats. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Was going to nominate myself but seeing the previous oppose to local election nominations, did not do so. However we can see that this is top news worldwide and the article is well referenced with sufficient prose. We can do an exception in this case, we are not saying that local elections should be ITNR. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Levivich's proposal. Anything which is top news on both Reuters and Agence France Presse (11/25/2019 - 06:36 story, and see the editor's choice left and centre videos) should easily qualify for a blurb. The outcome was "nothing short of a revolution", Hong Kong political analyst Willy Lam said. "It's a sound repudiation of the (Hong Kong) administration and Beijing's policy toward Hong Kong."  starship .paint  (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support add blurb/remove from Ongoing. ITNR is not a requirement for posting; non-ITNR items may be posted after establishing significance, and this meets that criteria. The article is in good shape. Elections are considered by all parties to be significant events, whereas the protest details are very routine and would get SNOWed if nominated alone. We can add the protests back to Ongoing if necessary.130.233.2.197 (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. They may be local elections but, given the current situation in Hong Kong, they are clearly significant enough to feature on the front page of major international news outlets. I also think this can be compatible with keeping the protests article in the Ongoing section; the articles are related and complement each other as they each tackle different aspects of the situation. Conejero intl (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Local elections though they may be, there is an extraordinary amount of international attention being paid to them by the news media. As it's in the news, we'd be remiss not to include it.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Went with the original blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PP support – Interesting that they allowed any election at all. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we modify the blurb so that the 2019 Hong Kong protests are included in the blurb, for example by appending, held during protests to it? This context is what makes these elections important. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with the suggestions made by . The election is significant, not only because of pro-democratic bloc's victory, but also because it essentially functions as a referendum to show that the public is still supporting the Hong Kong protesters. OceanHok (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Goo Hara

 * Oppose 39 [citation needed]s? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are too many (like 40) cn templates. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 36 citation needed templates in case anyone wanted an update.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have updated most of the [citation needed] templates. However, I am unable to find RS for her earlier works. Left with 9 citation needed templates. Hope this wouldn't disqualify her death from being put up as the crux was her suicide and the events surrounding it (which are cited). robertsky (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is now stale because it is older than the last death currently on ITN &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Davis Cup

 * Oppose - Limited prose in the article, specifically about the results of the matches ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Acceptable. STSC (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose For lack of prose, throughout the article, AND in the manifold, sprawling table-laden daughter articles. Groups of articles like this are fine as far as they go: documenting the fine-details results of a long competition in tables. But they are just not suitable for ITN. 130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Copa Libertadores Final

 * Support. Article seems to have been updated after the match with the latest developments. Clearly a very notable game. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not how sporting event pages need to be updated. There's no prose on the game itself. 2019 Copa Libertadores Final needs prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose no summary of the match. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but will support if a summary of the match itself is added Taewangkorea (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – This is ITNR and appears ready to post. There is now a sourced match summary. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. A prose summary of the match has been added and the article seems good enough to me. I've just done a copyedit. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liu Shahe

 * Support I don't see any problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --valereee (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Murder of Grace Millane

 * Oppose good faith nom. Even in the middle of this unusually slow period at ITN, I don't think we should be posting tabloid news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not considered "tabloid" in nz and the failure of the "rough sex" defence is legally significant. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as per this article, "Concern grows over ‘rough sex gone wrong’ defence in courts", in The Guardian . The case - from her disappearance to the murder trial - was certainly not tabloid news in Australia either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it was tabloid in the UK either, and whole case is significant there because of how NZ always seen as safe for single female travelers. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose A murder verdict is legit major breaking news, by any court reporter's standards, but a weird time to start publicizing a story. Save updates for previous ITN-featured allegations, suspects or victims. Less jarring for the unfamiliar that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If this story was going to be featured, conviction is the correct time - ITN does not feature allegations, suspects or charges in almost all instances (in part due to WP:BLP considerations). Crimes do sometimes feature when they happen, but that's judged on individual merit at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose May be a high profile NZ case, but it doesn't have international ramifications. --M asem (t) 05:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The victim, her parents and most everyone who'd know her to miss her were and will be dealing with this in England long after what's-his-name stops bothering New Zealanders. But yeah, the NZ news is hit harder than the UK press. Ri Chun-hee is apparently unmoved, for better or worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that the people involved here were not high profile, in contrast to the Oscar Pistorius case which I know we did post despite arguing also having no significant international importance. May be high profile in the country of interest (and this would go for any US case too, we aren't special in that regard) but its easy in such a case to judge how international media is coveraging it to know if it has recognizability beyond the country borders. --M asem (t) 15:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not of major international significance. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A run-of-the-mill murder case blown out of proportion by the media. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, et al. – Sca (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Though tragic, I don't believe this belongs on the first page. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 17:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

William Wang (defector)

 * Oppose Stub article, no blurb, no sources presented. I don't speak Mandarin so why would I go to the Mandarin Wikipedia? Further, your nom comment suggests the story is about a defector making allegations. That doesn't mean they're true. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on significance - it's seeing a lot of coverage in different countries. The allegations have been taken seriously as well, with Taiwan opening investigations already. However, the article is threadbare right now; it'll need more details to be posted. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's hard to tell yet whether the guy is a real spy or not, but he's quite possibly a fraudster, see The Age. In any case, this does not rise to the significance of a blurb (at first glance I thought it was an RD nomination). -Zanhe (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is mostly reaction to his defection, might fail WP:1E, and seems to have WP:BLP issues. There's no indication of any major significance or even if his allegations are plausible. The nomination was incomplete ('see Mandarin Wikipedia' is not a legitimate source) and gives no rationale either. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not proven allegations from someone just wanted to stay in Australia. STSC (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Barbara Hillary

 * I'm really sorry. This is a decent article but is too stale to post now. We have had a rush of good nominations lately. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Cleobury

 * Comment: Thank you for the nomination! I am still working on it, CDs need refs (will do that next). Formatting of refs is substandard, facts could be added. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: Added a few more facts from a Guardian obit. A note the addition of further referencing for the CDs by Gerda Arendt, which look good. Klbrain (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: all referenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the "as conductor" section should be in chronological order, but the rest is okay, so fine for me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, all sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, and thank you to User:Martinevans123 and User:Gerda Arendt for their work on this, you've really turned this around. Rob (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   22:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Arthur Marks

 * Oppose refs needed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Michael J. Pollard

 * Oppose most of the prose seems referenced, but the filmography isn't and that even includes works which don't have articles... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Henry Sobel

 * Comment I am not wowed by the overall quality of the article. There are orange tags which are a showstopper at ITN. And frankly the article seems to have a lot of gaps. It needs expansion and more details on his life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the tags: the article is 45% bio, 45% arrest/hospitalization, 10% other. Probably not balanced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Gugu Liberato

 * Oppose - orange tagged for references. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Too many paragraphs are still unreferenced. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 17:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Referencing fixed. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Did he really fall from the ceiling? Or did he fall off a roof? Zagal e jo^^^ 18:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the reports in the Brazilian press he was changing the filter in one air conditioning equipment on the ceiling when he fell and hit his head on the floor.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and  I think I fixed all the ref issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks better now. – Ammarpad (talk)
 * Weak oppose what's there seems cited, but it's a little hagiographical for me. It's all about how great he was.  And I'm not enamoured by phrases like Santos was about to undergo a delicate surgery and made a millionaire proposal to Gugu because (a) I don't understand "a delicate surgery" and (b) "a millionaire proposal" sounds proper tabloid.  It's just one example of the floral and overtly positive writing.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to address TRMs weak oppose?  Kees08  (Talk)   16:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and Actually, this story that TRM calls "hagiographical" is real and widely known in Brazil. Silvio Santos (SBT's owner and Brazilian most important TV's host) was about to undergo a surgery that could have made him voiceless and convinced Gugu (who had already signed a contract with Globo) to return to SBT offering him a huge amount of money, which made him, at that time, the better paid TV host in Brazil. But to address TRM concerns I can use the exact words and values. Like "Santos was about to undergo a delicate surgery in his vocal chords, which could strongly affect his voice and made a millionaire proposal to Gugu, offering him much of the Sunday's programming schedule, a minimum wage of USD 50,000 per month and USD 300,000 in advance plus holdings in merchandising and ads, which made him the better-paid TV's host in Brazil at that time" or something like this. What do you think? If TRM has other concerns I can also try to address them. If you want to check, there's a source here. It's in Portuguese, but you can translate it and have a good idea about the story I'm telling.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All I'm sayin is that it needs to be written neutral and encyclopedic in tone, which when I looked, it wasn't. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Colombia protests

 * Support Could use a little more expansion about what led to the protests in the first place, but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 17:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly, three deaths in a protest just isnt a notable blurb in today's world. Perhaps post to ongoing, but no new additions since the 22nd.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's at seven deaths (in the first 2 days), I just thought three on the first day was rather notable. Compared to only one death in HK protests all year. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose like Bagumba, the initial story is "meh" and yet the article seems to be suggesting this is an ongoing issue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and ongoing later. Hundreds of thousands of people involved, dominates national news, etc. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Globally and regionally significant news. STSC (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove: Trump impeachment inquiry

 * Keep Slow week? Did you forget your winking smiley after this? Tuesday and Wednesday's testimony was the most substantial event since the whistle-blower. Also the impeachment vote is in the house; the removal vote is in the Senate.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep until he is acquitted, resigns or is removed. It's going to be front page news everywhere until them, and we serve our readers by helping them find reliable information about this topic. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same could be said for Brexit. And actually, Trump's impeachment is nowhere near front page news in the UK, whereas Brexit and our general election (as a result of Brexit deadlock) most certainly is.  We could serve our (non-American) readers well by restoring Brexit if this argument holds any water. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I supported removal last time but after this week, how could we remove it? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom. If we were considering these events in isolation, they would not be posted as individual ITN items until the final vote.  Spencer T• C 15:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove The event is going to take months (between the current questioning, the House forming and voting on the terms of impeachment, etc.) It's major news, and there's a ton of coverage of it in US sources, but its going to be like this through the end of the Congressional term before they take their holiday break, and likely to continue into Jan and Feb. Clearly, if the House votes to pass the terms of impeachment, that's a blurb, and at the point if the Senate holds their sessions to actually determine if to convict, that might be where ongoing would be appropriate again since that would be more reasonably limited in its time frame (a month or so). --M asem  (t) 15:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This is what ongoing is for. The article continues to be updated, as the process is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – (keep) – Developments continue. Today DT sez he wants to be impeached. This is the most significant political topic in the U.S. since the days of "I am not a crook." – Sca (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been updated essentially daily, and has a full paragraph of new information just about the events of yesterday. Meets all of the requirements for Ongoing items in spades.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Muboshgu and Jayron. I have to say that "nothing major beyond a handful of witness testimonies" is quite an understatement considering how much coverage they generated.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Still in the news, still updated frequently. Davey2116 (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

UK misses an UNGA deadline to hand over Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius

 * Oppose Article has no update, unclear the significance of missing the deadline, and seems more written for WP:RGW than ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are no updates in the article and it is too long. An interesting story, otherwise. Would support if the article was ok. --Tone 16:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Holy quotes... article is not really up to par, hasn't been updated yet, and per Muboshgu, we're not trying to WP:RGW ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The UNGA is a largely toothless body, aside from the RGW issue. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Must tell the world about this. STSC (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what the news is for, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. ITN would tell the world. STSC (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on significance.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Half-Life: Alyx

 * Oppose posting a product announcement not covered in depth in mainstream media(not just niche publications). 331dot (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose an announcement of a video game? Nope. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The scheduled release isn't even until March. If at that time this game becomes front-page news in mainstream publications, let's talk. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I will commit every waking breath of mine on Wikipedia to ensure a video game item never makes it to ITN, or else may God strike me dead. This particular item is not especially notable. WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Even as a VG centric editor and aware how major this is in that industry, this is clearly not ITN. ITN is not really for any type of product announcements regardless of how much an impact they could have in that industry. --M asem (t) 21:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if it's released and becomes a phenomenon (see Pokemon Go) then maybe, but until then this is premature. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Mann

 * Support Article is in decent shape and well referenced. Discography needs a cite, but by itself that's not enough to stop posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Wataru Misaka

 * Needs a citation for the career statistics but it otherwise looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Citation added now. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - can't find any problems with this article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Fábio Barreto

 * Comment IMDb is used a reference four times. The article appears well-referenced outside of that. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , my bad. Fixed.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * One citation missing, which I've tagged, but its not a crucial sentence so if you can't easily find a citation you can probably just remove it. Once that's sorted though this will be good to go. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , fixed.--SirEdimon (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

==9/9/2001
 * Support - per the change made as requested by Thryduulf, looks good to go ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 13:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Name:Aryan kumar mohali

(Posted) RD: Terry O'Neill

 * Weak oppose the ref for the books fails verification for me, but the rest is okay. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So are ISBNs sufficient on their own? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Most certainly. I didn't see those when I looked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't believe you've missed that cn tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, I added the failed verification tag, not a cn tag. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one that's now gone. Perhaps we can just ignore the cn tag then. Cheers though. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well quite possibly, but I'm not sure what it has to do with your jokey small text comment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I've cited that single cn. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can't see any reason to oppose now. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick turnaround on this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Brown

 * The death date is now sourced to a local newspaper. Struck above. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support The article is well-referenced, but could do with expansion if anyone wants to help! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's 'start' not 'stub', and is currently being expanded. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support much better now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Andrew D. (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Cited well ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought John Brown died in 1859 p  b  p  21:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Fresno mass shooting

 * Follow-up nom comment - I might also add that this shooting is unusual in that it did not take place in a school or a public space, but at someone's private dwelling. Children were also present.--WaltCip (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the discussion of the Saugus shooting below. None of the differences are significant. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius. --M asem (t) 14:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time, I concur with Modest Genius. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Article contains very little information; it is only marginally past stub level.  Heck, there's almost more text in the headers than in the actual prose itself!  I would consider supporting with a significant expansion of text.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to expand it. What sort of details would you be looking for? Local/national reactions? A synopsis of what occurred? --WaltCip (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A synopsis is better. Reactions are usually WP:TRIVIA-level stuff, added to beef up an otherwise thin article.  The article should be, as efficiently as possible, a complete summary of what scholarship there is on an event.  Do note that my opposition allows for the possibility the article could never be expanded, if for example, there's just not enough information in reliable sources to write a decent article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose despite this being the deadliest shooting at a garden party in Fresno in November in 2019. This is something like the 400th mass shooting in the United States this year, business as usual. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it was a watch party, one that happened to be in a garden.--WaltCip (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, where I come from there's no such thing as a watch party. That just sounds like a load of creepy blokes comparing their pieces. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor where I come from. Sacremento Bee calls it simply a backyard party. – Sca (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've heard the media use the term "watch party" term dozens of times, whether its for a major sports contest (i.e. the Super Bowl), important political events, or series finales of popular shows. A quick Google search shows 9,920,000 results for the term. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, in America. This is English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah and British English uses words and phrases American English doesn't either, and vice versa. Doesn't make them either dialect illegitimate. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about British English. There are plenty of other variants, none of which use "watch party" in this context.  When this becomes "American English Wikipedia", let me know.  But we're dithering around the edges.  This, like all such other "mass shooting in US" nominations is a dead duck.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My point was just because you've "never heard of it", doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Google found almost 10 million results for the term, so clearly it's commonly used. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a word that's going to be misunderstood (not even just simply not understood - a "watch party" is surely more common to mean vigil or having a stake-out?) by a large number of readers doesn't belong on the main page. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What's there to misunderstand? Like I said already, a watch party is when a large group of people gather at a specific location and time to watch a certain program on TV. Not exactly rocket science here. CNN called it a watch party by the way. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reasons Saugus was opposed just last week ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. Two mass shootings in my state in less than a week.  p  b  p  15:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The 3rd in a week even. There also was a domestic murder-suicide in San Diego with 5 dead. At least according to this article. Which in itself makes clear how, while of course tragic, this sort of thing is just business as usual. 80.138.66.157 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – The fact that this was the third mass shooting in California in less than a week puts this in a different category in terms of news value, aka significance, IMHO. Wiki shouldn't be anti-something solely on the basis of location, i.e. country. (WP:NPOV) – Sca (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree; I wouldn't mind a proposed alt-blurb that highlights that this is the third high-profile mass shooting in California within a week.--WaltCip (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: "Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country." – Sca (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not highlight that it's the Xth (~400th?) mass shooting this year or something similar? That, to me, is far more newsworthy than a coincidental three in one arbitrary geographical locale in a week.  There's no link, so using Wikipedia voice to somehow even allude to a one is insulting in extremis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Another mass shooting in California this week. Without a notable death count, this now falls into practically expected. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but expand. Article is pretty scant on specific details. The suspect is unidentified and still on the loose, the motive is unknown, it's not even clear whether or not the suspect even knew the victims or if it was just a random act of violence, etc. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Saudi Aramco IPO

 * Support on quality and significance, but feel we need at least a little context on the IPO itself. Every story I read on this is mentioning Khashoggi, most are saying this is bad timing, asking "what does this all mean?" etc.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Shame on me for taking blurb at face value. Why in the hell would be post a blurb for something that hasn't happened?  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it will only be after the IPO that we will have a good idea of the value of the company; the IPO closes Dec 5. Additionally, we usually don't post this type of business news unless proven to be some significant/superlative facet. (To add, the IPO had been planned for a while, the drone strike earlier this year slowed plans but obviously they are back now. This is not a big surprise outside of the speed.) --M asem (t) 15:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a big number, but as Masem notes, meaningless until after the IPO. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. Apparently that's only the announced price for the first 1.5% of the company, so this is a massive extrapolation and no-one has actually bought it yet. If it finishes as the largest IPO ever, I think that would be worth posting, but let's wait to see what happens. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is the first IPO for what is essentially the world's largest corporation.  On top of that, it stands a fairly good chance of breaking the IPO record.NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The IPO has been withdrawn from the London and New York markets, which were the only one's that mattered. It will debut sometime (Dec-Jan?) on the tiny and illiquid Saudi-run Tadawul exchange. That is, the stock will not be freely tradable and will not represent controlling interest, as most readers would assume for an IPO. This has been a cat-and-mouse game going back to 2006 or so. This simply has to wait, at least, for the stock to actually be listed and for bonafide transactions to take place (so as to establish some semblance of "public" valuation).130.233.3.140 (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Big number, little meaning. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Sri Lankan presidential election

 * Since the votes are still being counted, I'm holding off on officially adding a blurb. But since sources from Reuters and BBC are projecting Gotabhaya Rajapaksa as the winner, my proposal is: Former Defense Minister Gotabhaya Rajapaksa is elected president of Sri Lanka.
 * With that being said, I unfortunately will have to give this a weak oppose for now. While this election is unusually important for such an overlooked country (due to, among other things, the controversial reputation of Rajapaksa, the election happening months after a devastating terrorist attack, the strength of Indian and Chinese influence in the region depending on who wins, etc.), the article itself is poorly organized. The "Timeline" section needs to be converted to prose (probably reorganized into "Background"), and there is an "Empty section" tag in the "Polls" section, for starters. Mount Patagonia (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The election results are still pending but Gotabaya Rajapaksa claims that he has emerged victorious. Officially the Election Commissioner hasn't revealed a reliable statement about this. Gotabaya is leading the election results by a big margin at the moment compared to his rival Sajith Premadasa. I would support if the winner is officially confirmed. Abishe (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The details are updated and I hope this would qualify for ITN. If Bolivian protests can be nominated for the ITN why can't the Sri Lankan elections be considered. Looks like no one is interested regarding this at least few could have said to oppose this. No response and no regular activity here today and it is quite ironical to say this. Abishe (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is worse than the article for which we also did not post. No summary of results and an ugly timeline that should be presented in prose. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Where are the results? And there seems to be a little lack of refs. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The results are updated now and this is seriously important to nominate for ITN. First of all Gotabaya had several charges levelled on him and defied all the odds to become the President. Notably escaped from a suicide bombing in 2006. He is charged with war crimes which were committed durinf the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and had issues regarding the American citizenship prior to contesting at the elections. So these factors I guess would make sense to be nominated. Tamil Guardian CNN Al Jazeera] Abishe (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You still to address the formatting for the "Timeline" section, and many of the sources on the page are just bare URLs. If both of these can be fixed, I will switch to support. Mount Patagonia (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The results have not been summarized in prose. Please summarized the highlights from the table of results in words and cite sources to verify the interpretation. Something like "Gotabaya Rajapaksa of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party earned 52.25% of the votes..." and so on to describe the major points detailed in the table. Don't force readers to interpret the results for themselves. The aftermath section is not a summary of results; it is a summary of the aftermath. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Tweaked blurb.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series

 * Comment Some CN tags. A very thorough ITNR article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. There are only three cn tags on unimportant facts, which I think is acceptable in such a mammoth article. I'm pleased to see there are prose summaries of every race. We don't put sponsor names in ITN blurbs, adding alt2. Looks good to go. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't debate the importance of those facts, but they are "likely to be challenged," so they need to be sourced. No problem though, because "any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that they need a source; the tags are justified. I just don't think they're a serious enough problem to prevent posting in ITN. If you prefer to delete those statement entirely, that's fine with me. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood, just my own preference is that I would not support as is, and I won't strike the statement unless I personally put in a good faith effort to reference. I've done so for one of the three.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All the cn tags have been dealt with (not by me). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II like all good Boat Race articles, this is GOOD TO GO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still good to go, four hours later! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Image isn't protected. I've just sent it to CMP and I'll post as soon as the bot does its job. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fast work KrinkleBot! Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Bolivian political crisis

 * Oppose Blurb is still on news and no immediate sign it is about to fall off. Better to consider the situation when the blurb does fall off. --M asem  (t) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I nom'd because the blurb is a week old... but so is the box... Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose not seeing much here that needs voting on. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Iranian fuel protests

 * Your blurb is plagiarized. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Modified - Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The content of the article is fine and suitable for ITN. I have addressed some minor CE things. I cannot check references, however, because 13/20 of them are in Farsi or Arabic. I know for certain that some of the details that these references support can be found in English language media. Without those, I cannot know for certain the precise words that protestors have been chanting, for example.130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins, please note that my comment here should not be interpreted as an oppose !vote. Non-English sources are not in themselves a problem, and I was only asking for editors to incorporate English-language ones as a matter of polishing.130.233.3.140 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support according to the BBC, we're now up to at least twelve killed and the article is of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Amnesty International, clearly the more reliable source in this matter, is reporting at least 106 deaths during this event. The article quality is sufficient. It drifted a bit since TRM commented, which is why I withheld my support, but has since been remedied. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like a decent article.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is this not being posted? Sherenk1 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurbs (even with "at least" included) are an under-representation of a nation-wide protest with several cities descending into anarchy for a time. I propose either removing the "12 people" part or adding the Amnesty International statistics to avoid propagating a possible big lie further. I added a blurb resembling the one used in Persian Wikipedia. Bazdasht (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and I have added another altblurb. I know that we try to avoid stuff like "dozens, many" in blurbs, but the near-total internet blackout in Iran means that it's impossible to get precise numbers and exact details. This is clearly A Big Deal, and I think it better to post something a little vague than to ignore it completely. There seems to be very good consensus to post this. Can someone who can, move on this?130.233.3.140 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Wrote an altblurb based on alt3. I still think wording could be improved; please leave suggestions at WP:ERRORS.  Spencer T• C 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Mark Cady

 * Comment 33 year career as a judge, with 21 of those years as the highest judge in the state, and the only mention of his judicial acts in his BLP is for gay marriage (twice) and abortion. As for his personal life, I now know that Cady had a dog and participated in some civic organizations. I guess there's nothing wrong with the article, just that it doesn't inform the reader of anything.130.233.3.140 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per IP, it's a stub. Needs expanding.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose stub, what's there is fine. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Saugus High School shooting
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-county-deputies-respond-report-santa-clarita-school-shooting-n1082231


 * Not wishing to partake in the rest of this conversation, I will note that To exclude this from the Main Page would be a disservice... is not an argument for (or against) Main Page inclusion or any Wikipedia action, as we are not here to right great wrongs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a high-profile, national event. One person has been killed. It certainly merits inclusion in the Main Page, just like the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Sanjay7373 (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. School shootings are regretfully a common event in the United States, and as they go this is a relatively minor one- and I get that sounds terrible to say.  The event is certainly a terrible event generally and of extreme importance to the community the school is in. This is, however, a global encyclopedia and we have to make certain decisions about what goes on the Main Page.  If this shooting is significant enough, there would likely need to be a permanent spot on the Main Page for posting all of them as they happen.  Politicians routinely comment on them and doing so isn't always an indicator of importance.  Trying to right the great wrong of shootings is not the role of ITN or Wikipedia.  331dot (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * How many times do we have to go through this? Shootings are routine in the United States. Americans regard them as normal and acceptable, and a fair exchange for a right to possess lethal weapons. The politicians there haven't taken any action for decades and are not likely to do so in the foreseeable future. A car bomb in Baghdad has far more long-term domestic and international impact.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to express views on guns in the United States, regardless of their merits. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not expressing any views on guns. I am just saying that this event is very high-profile and should be included on the Main Page. One person has died in what is generally considered a safe city.Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My comment was addressed to Hawkeye7. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I am not either. I was only commenting on the impact. That politicians on the campaign trail have commented seems routine; a media rep will often pose a question about a current event.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't see anything about a car bomb in Baghdad on the main page. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose tragic for the community but sadly run of the mill. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And now another person has died. This is a national and international news story, and it certainly warrants inclusion on the main page. In fact, it should be included on the main page, just like shootings in Parkland, Orlando, Las Vegas, etc.Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those shootings had much higher levels of casualties. If we posted every shooting like this in the United States, that's all we would be doing here. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sadly. And Please stop posting so many of your own comments on this nomination; I understand how you feel, but it's not good form. Funcrunch (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A better way to look at this: if there was a mass stabbing in France that killed two people, that'd also not make ITN. Neither would any mass casualty incident which killed two people in Canada (unless the people who died were notable: such as an assassination of a prominent political figure or something). Nothing really to do with it being in the US. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose As others have said, shootings in the US are too common place to every one up, and this, with only 1-2 deaths, fails to meet "MINIMUMDEATHS". Yes, it is tragic, but too commonplace. --M asem (t) 20:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, car bombs are pretty common in Baghdad in the same way shootings are common in the USA. In addition, Santa Clarita is a relatively safe community. A massacre in Compton might not be as notable as one in Santa Clarita. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others. Aside from the notability of the event, the article isn't really up to par for ITN anyway - it's barely passed stub-level. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This event is pretty notable, as evidenced by the reactions not only from Santa Clarita, but from politicians across the country in Washington, D.C. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, politicians routinely comment on tragic events and doing so is no indication of its significance. Maybe if a law was passed as a result, but not now. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which do you think is more notable: the construction of a Hindu temple in India, or the deaths of 2 innocent students at a school in Santa Clarita? A Hindu temple is just a building, here, two students have died and countless more were injured.Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a false equivalency. We judge each nomination on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The injured are not 'countless', either. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling this would be nominated if for no other reason than this occurred in Los Angeles County. You have made your point, Sanjay, but there's just not enough for this to be fit for ITN due to the high frequency of mass shootings in the US. With that said, strong oppose. Also, regarding your comparison to the Hindu temple story, please be mindful of your systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but for a different reason than the people trashing our gun laws: even if this shooting took place outside of the US, it still wouldn't be notable enough for ITN. It's tragic, but there are neither enough deaths nor any indication that it'll impact things long term in order to warrant a blurb. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   22:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks long term notability. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the last school shooting in the US that was posted on ITN was the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February 2018. Since then there have been, according to List of school shootings in the United States, some 57 further incidents that we have not posted, including several with higher casualty figures than this one. The bar for inclusion in ITN is high, and this doesn't seem to meet that level, as others have noted. Spokoyni (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – For all the reasons expressed, once again, above. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vashishtha Narayan Singh

 * Oppose Needs a copyedit and there are some unreferenced claims.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  - A few sources needed, then looks good to go ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support now after updating. Thanks Nizil! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage: lists some positions that he worked in, but nothing mentioned regarding his contributions to the field of mathematics.  Spencer T• C 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking oppose given explanations below. While I don't support the nomination due to concerns about depth of coverage, marking as ready as there does appear to be consensus to post.  Spencer T• C 03:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Updated/organised/expanded with references. -Nizil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider you votes. I have updated article. May require minor copyediting. -Nizil (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your referencing work. My position remains since there have been no new additions regarding his career work as a mathematician.  Spencer T• C 15:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at Talk:Vashishtha Narayan Singh. -Nizil (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, it looks like he did not contribute much to mathematics and the article is reflective of that. I will be honest, the article does not do a good job explaining why Singh is notable. Is he notable for being lost on the train journey? If so, then the article should be expanded more to reflect that. Right now, the article is basically a CV in prose form without much meat to it. Best,  Spencer T• C 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I have written on talkpage, he is notable for "his circumstances" instead of "his accomplishments". I have tried to dive deeper in his circumstances like being lost etc but most of the information is untrustworthy/differing in details and anecdotal so I refrained from adding it. The article could have been better with more in depth information but I believe that this start-class basic article is enough to be in ITN. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Several sentences need rewriting in grammatical English. Stephen 10:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I am not native English speaker. I welcome copyediting by others. -Nizil (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support it seems like a leap from being lost on a train for four years to being a professor. This looks incomplete.  What's there, while a bit messy, is ok. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   06:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Branko Lustig

 * Oppose for now; Filmography unreferenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per P-K3 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ping me when ready.BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose well referenced besides the seven [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordie Gosse

 * Support - Short article but sourcing looks good ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The election result is unsourced. Also, he was in office from 2003-2015 so why is only the 2013 result included? Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 21:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As with many other start-class politician articles nominated to RD, very minimal information about what he accomplished in his role as a politician (policies, political issues, legislation passed, etc.) beyond "Gosse implemented a strict policy banning the use of mobile devices, including smart phones in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly during Question Period".  Spencer T• C 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to go in my POV.BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The 2013 election result now has a source attached to it. ミラP 02:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   07:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Spurgeon

 * Support - I added a couple of refs to a couple unsourced claims, looks good to go now ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Don't see any issues now referencing has been improved.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Niall Tóibín

 * Oppose - Sourcing not quite there yet ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - sources improved Joseywales1961 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per mike, referencing needs more work.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment While resolving the last CN tag, I came across c-p COPYVIO text, and have tagged the appropriate section. I am unsure if the source is copyright protected.130.233.3.140 (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply Hi. I'm not sure which part of the section you think was COPYVIO. But, as per CLOP/COPYVIO check on that section, the only content with a material overlap is the sentence which starts "From Ryan's Daughter and Bracken in the 1970s...". I wrote the original form of that sentence. Myself. In 2005. I did not copy it from a Wordpress site. Or any other source. The current form of that sentence is based on some amends in 2007. Those amends (2007) were made a full decade before that Wordpress site was published (in 2017). If there is any overlap in content, then I would suggest that it is because that Wordpress page was copy/pasted from the Wikipedia article. Rather than the other way around. I have removed the COPYVIO tag. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This was for the in-article line "He also acted for the radio, such as his guest appearance in the BBC Radio 4 series Baldi" which is verbatim (save tense) from reference 10, someone's personal website that is both not a Wiki-mirror and appears to be his own (presumably original) writing, and not found on any other non-mirror website. I tagged it just so that someone would take a look.130.233.3.140 (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Raymond Poulidor

 * Oppose - Prose is pretty undersourced. Hard to tell which of his results are sourced as well ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kieran Modra

 * Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Seconded. Nice looking article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edwin Bramall

 * Support - An admirable man and an impressive article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, a true hero and ready for the main page. Only question I would have, should we list it as "Edwin Bramall" or "Lord Bramall"?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have deferred to the article's current title &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Charles Rogers (American football)

 * Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, contrary to assertion by OP. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A significant number of claims are unsourced, including many that are BLP issues (which apply to the recently deceased). Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Le Mesurier

 * Oppose orange tag will need resolving - when fixed, support. Well-cited article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when the orange tag is removed. The article is mostly well-sourced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just edited the article a bit, adding more sourced information about his work with the White Helmets, and deleting an unsourced and incomplete sentence in that section. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks good now. Significant improvements made. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The information in paretheses under Military service surely means something, but it's lost on ENGVAR and JARGON. Presumably, he was in the military while not under command, or somesuch. If that was the extent of his official service, then I don't know why there should be a Military service section.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that he joined the army before he was on active service. His actual service is covered by "He was promoted to lieutenant on 11 August 1993, and to captain on 11 August 1996. He worked with the United Nations peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. He retired from the military on 1 June 2000." So that's 7 years of military service, after 3 years at university sponsored by the army, and about 6 weeks on probation at Sandhurst. Perhaps that section could be edited to make that a bit clearer. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the Officers' Training Corps, but someone with more knowledge of British military organization would need to confirm. The U.S. has a similar system called the Reserve Officers' Training Corps of which I am more familiar, but the source is not clear on this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delay until article is more settled. I'm not experienced with ITN proposals, but with the Turkish media talking about his wife saying Le Mesurier was thinking of suicide 15 days before his death and was on psychiatric medication, it looks like there likely will be significant messy developments before too long.  I wouldn't add such stuff at the moment on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds, but here is an example. Rwendland (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He was on "psychiatric medication"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury

 * Support It is not a super rare event (last was 3 yrs ago, next is about 20) but this is along the lines of total eclipses and the like, so fair enough to post. --M asem (t) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to that article, the next transit of Mercury is projected for 2032 Nov 13, which is 13 years from now. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article is not up to standard, several unsourced data in tables, sentences or even paragraphs.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - I suggest you improve the article by citing sources for all information in text or tables.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there seems to be no prose about this specific transit, and the pattern of the article suggests there never will be any. --LukeSurlt c 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Whilst this is indeed a rare event (next one is in 2032), and I've been watching a live stream of it, at this point it's little more than trivia. All the science that can be obtained from such events was extracted centuries ago. ITN did post 2012 transit of Venus, but that event got a lot more public attention and a stand-alone article. That's even more true of total eclipses, which still have difficulty filling an article with useful information. Other than 'rare event happened exactly as predicted', it's not clear what could be said about this transit. There's certainly no substantial new content in transit of Mercury (currently just a tense change). Creating a new article and getting it into DYK would be better than putting the generic article in ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well as this transit is about to end soon, so no point to post on ITN now. As astronomical events can be predicted to eternity into the future, this probably needs to be posted on ITN/R instead and be notified in due time without short notice before one occur (be it a transit or any type of eclipse). --Arseny1992 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, call for close Didn't seem particularly important, and is (almost) over now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure why something described by a reliable source as an ""incredibly rare celestial event" should be snow-closed. It won't happen for another 20-odd years.   ITN does  cover events that have completed, so no reason to just shut this down.  Probably as notable (and indeed rarer) as many other predictable celestial events, such a total eclipse.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support as notable as eclipses etc, and rare, as noted above, but the article could use some work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article doesn't have much info on this more than one line in a table. If it's not notable enough to have more than a brief mention on the general article about the topic then surely it's not notable enough for ITN. <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b>  <b style=color:white>T</b> / <b style=color:white>C</b> 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem - it's not a rare event. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION: Masem said it wasn't a "super rare" event, and it won't happen again for 20 years.   The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I've reopened this nomination, which I felt was closed prematurely. Although I !voted oppose, 5v3 is not 'clear consensus', the nomination has been open for less than 24 hours, and the outcome could change if there is substantial expansion of the article (or creation of a new one). Let this one play out a bit longer. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is updated, the subject has some news coverage, the article is okay. Yes, it's not world-changing, but neither are the rote violence and protests that we post on ITN. We can call this a genuinely rare event that will not be repeated anytime soon without running afould of CRYSTAL.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any prose update in the article. The 2019 event just has one line in a data table. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Glad this was reopened. It is a sufficiently rare astronomical event. Definitely encyclopedic. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The specific occurrence doesn't even seem to merit its own article (unlike eclipses, where we generally post the stand-alone article about the event). The information about this transit appears to be confined to a date in a chart.  There's just not enough Wikipedia content about this event to make it worth posting to the main page.  If there were a sizable stand-alone article, or at least a several-paragraph section in a more general article, I could support it.  However, there is not enough there there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Consensus against on ephemeral nature of (past) event, lack of general visibility and lack of wider significance. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I had to add 36  tags because I already warned about unsourced information earlier, but it was not fixed.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But on the plus side, it could be illustrated with this pic. – Sca (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) →
 * Comment IMHO requesting sources for every obvious claim is considered disruptive, as well as requesting sources for every table item that result in what happens currently with ref #25. Especially when every occurrence of any astronomical event can be calculated up and is at NASA anyway, thus the table exists. Or Wikipedia is going nowadays only about adding sources to everything, including adding cn even to simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2.", then this would be requiring getting a reference, which then explains in long detail why 2 is a sum of 1+1? Common sense guess would work better. If a meteorite would start falling, or aliens from alternate dimension would be invading, the last thing you probably would be doing, is requiring news sources for claims. As for this transit, when it did occur, you as well probably could watch it happen: you don't get a transit or eclipse everyday, and well since this discussion haven't gathered much in favor for notability of a rare event, it may be closed, but is to be taken into account when next transit/eclipse is about to occur, so probably best to note such events as ITN/R criteria. --Arseny1992 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - in my view as a layperson in this field, nothing unsourced in the article fits simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2." You can't expect our readers to be versed in astronomy. If you can find something to disprove my assertion, post it.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I sort of want to see this on the main page since it's not common by any measure, but there's no way an article on this would have enough data, as seen through the linked article not even being specific to the date. Pie3141527182 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Charles Rogers (American football)

 * Oppose Large swathes of text are unreferenced, contrary to assertion by OP. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A significant number of claims are unsourced, including many that are BLP issues (which apply to the recently deceased). Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Le Mesurier

 * Oppose orange tag will need resolving - when fixed, support. Well-cited article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when the orange tag is removed. The article is mostly well-sourced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just edited the article a bit, adding more sourced information about his work with the White Helmets, and deleting an unsourced and incomplete sentence in that section. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Looks good now. Significant improvements made. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The information in paretheses under Military service surely means something, but it's lost on ENGVAR and JARGON. Presumably, he was in the military while not under command, or somesuch. If that was the extent of his official service, then I don't know why there should be a Military service section.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that he joined the army before he was on active service. His actual service is covered by "He was promoted to lieutenant on 11 August 1993, and to captain on 11 August 1996. He worked with the United Nations peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslavia. He retired from the military on 1 June 2000." So that's 7 years of military service, after 3 years at university sponsored by the army, and about 6 weeks on probation at Sandhurst. Perhaps that section could be edited to make that a bit clearer. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the Officers' Training Corps, but someone with more knowledge of British military organization would need to confirm. The U.S. has a similar system called the Reserve Officers' Training Corps of which I am more familiar, but the source is not clear on this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delay until article is more settled. I'm not experienced with ITN proposals, but with the Turkish media talking about his wife saying Le Mesurier was thinking of suicide 15 days before his death and was on psychiatric medication, it looks like there likely will be significant messy developments before too long.  I wouldn't add such stuff at the moment on WP:BLP and WP:RS grounds, but here is an example. Rwendland (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * He was on "psychiatric medication"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Transit of Mercury
}}
 * article      = Transit of Mercury
 * article2     =
 * image        =
 * blurb        = Mercury transits the Sun.
 * recent deaths = no
 * ongoing      = yes
 * altblurb     =
 * altblurb2    =
 * altblurb3    =
 * altblurb4    =
 * sources      = The Independent, timeanddate.com
 * updated      =
 * updated2     =
 * creator      =
 * updater      =
 * updater2     =
 * updater3     =
 * ITNR         = no
 * nom cmt      = Currently ongoing. Quite rare astronomical event.
 * nominator    = Arseny1992
 * sign         = Arseny1992 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support It is not a super rare event (last was 3 yrs ago, next is about 20) but this is along the lines of total eclipses and the like, so fair enough to post. --M asem (t) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to that article, the next transit of Mercury is projected for 2032 Nov 13, which is 13 years from now. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the article is not up to standard, several unsourced data in tables, sentences or even paragraphs.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - I suggest you improve the article by citing sources for all information in text or tables.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there seems to be no prose about this specific transit, and the pattern of the article suggests there never will be any. --LukeSurlt c 15:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Whilst this is indeed a rare event (next one is in 2032), and I've been watching a live stream of it, at this point it's little more than trivia. All the science that can be obtained from such events was extracted centuries ago. ITN did post 2012 transit of Venus, but that event got a lot more public attention and a stand-alone article. That's even more true of total eclipses, which still have difficulty filling an article with useful information. Other than 'rare event happened exactly as predicted', it's not clear what could be said about this transit. There's certainly no substantial new content in transit of Mercury (currently just a tense change). Creating a new article and getting it into DYK would be better than putting the generic article in ITN. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well as this transit is about to end soon, so no point to post on ITN now. As astronomical events can be predicted to eternity into the future, this probably needs to be posted on ITN/R instead and be notified in due time without short notice before one occur (be it a transit or any type of eclipse). --Arseny1992 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, call for close Didn't seem particularly important, and is (almost) over now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure why something described by a reliable source as an ""incredibly rare celestial event" should be snow-closed. It won't happen for another 20-odd years.   ITN does  cover events that have completed, so no reason to just shut this down.  Probably as notable (and indeed rarer) as many other predictable celestial events, such a total eclipse.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support as notable as eclipses etc, and rare, as noted above, but the article could use some work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article doesn't have much info on this more than one line in a table. If it's not notable enough to have more than a brief mention on the general article about the topic then surely it's not notable enough for ITN. <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b>  <b style=color:white>T</b> / <b style=color:white>C</b> 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem - it's not a rare event. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * CLARIFICATION: Masem said it wasn't a "super rare" event, and it won't happen again for 20 years.   The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I've reopened this nomination, which I felt was closed prematurely. Although I !voted oppose, 5v3 is not 'clear consensus', the nomination has been open for less than 24 hours, and the outcome could change if there is substantial expansion of the article (or creation of a new one). Let this one play out a bit longer. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is updated, the subject has some news coverage, the article is okay. Yes, it's not world-changing, but neither are the rote violence and protests that we post on ITN. We can call this a genuinely rare event that will not be repeated anytime soon without running afould of CRYSTAL.130.233.2.197 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any prose update in the article. The 2019 event just has one line in a data table. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Glad this was reopened. It is a sufficiently rare astronomical event. Definitely encyclopedic. WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The specific occurrence doesn't even seem to merit its own article (unlike eclipses, where we generally post the stand-alone article about the event). The information about this transit appears to be confined to a date in a chart.  There's just not enough Wikipedia content about this event to make it worth posting to the main page.  If there were a sizable stand-alone article, or at least a several-paragraph section in a more general article, I could support it.  However, there is not enough there there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Consensus against on ephemeral nature of (past) event, lack of general visibility and lack of wider significance. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I had to add 36  tags because I already warned about unsourced information earlier, but it was not fixed.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But on the plus side, it could be illustrated with this pic. – Sca (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) →
 * Comment IMHO requesting sources for every obvious claim is considered disruptive, as well as requesting sources for every table item that result in what happens currently with ref #25. Especially when every occurrence of any astronomical event can be calculated up and is at NASA anyway, thus the table exists. Or Wikipedia is going nowadays only about adding sources to everything, including adding cn even to simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2.", then this would be requiring getting a reference, which then explains in long detail why 2 is a sum of 1+1? Common sense guess would work better. If a meteorite would start falling, or aliens from alternate dimension would be invading, the last thing you probably would be doing, is requiring news sources for claims. As for this transit, when it did occur, you as well probably could watch it happen: you don't get a transit or eclipse everyday, and well since this discussion haven't gathered much in favor for notability of a rare event, it may be closed, but is to be taken into account when next transit/eclipse is about to occur, so probably best to note such events as ITN/R criteria. --Arseny1992 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - in my view as a layperson in this field, nothing unsourced in the article fits simple obvious claims such as "1+1 equals 2." You can't expect our readers to be versed in astronomy. If you can find something to disprove my assertion, post it.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I sort of want to see this on the main page since it's not common by any measure, but there's no way an article on this would have enough data, as seen through the linked article not even being specific to the date. Pie3141527182 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rick Ludwin

 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Spanish general election

 * Oppose needs a prose update of the results, more citations in the timeline and ideally some more prose here. Also, the opinion polls graph seems to go on into the future - it should be cut down to end in Nov 2019 so we can see the lines. Kingsif (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't typically mention lesser parties in blurbs like this. Suggest altblurb. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Still no prose in results. There is, however, a giant table-dump daughter article listing results by district, and some (poorly sourced) new prose under Aftermath. The content of the latter might be suitable for Results prose.130.233.2.197 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The major contributor,, says that a prose summary is not needed. I guess we will never post Spanish elections any more. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a small prose summary at the November 2019 Spanish general election. What I said is that a summary is not needed in the "Results" section, because all sources depict results with tables and, frankly, there is little sense in trying to describe with words what is already better described through a sourced table. Impru 20  talk 05:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Resignation of Bolivian gov't; Jeanine Áñez becomes president-designate

 * Support in principle, but Morales's resignation is barely mentioned in the article right now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's totally true, I am working on it along other users users, but it's as hot as a hot dog. Not much info apart from the military pressure. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support  - This is major news. Articles seems ready to be posted. BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits, should the blurb mention that the VP resigned too(as we don't know who is in charge yet). 331dot (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally a change of head of state is regarded as ITNR as well(though, again, we don't know who it is changing to yet). 331dot (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi my friend, as I said, it's so hot the news that it's overwhelming TV, I've just heard that military authorities have ordered the arrest of Morales. Too many changes at any moment. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait until we know who has taken over. Also I'm not wild about the blurb which seems to imply this was a military coup. It should reference the ongoing protests what the hell is going on -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and added alt. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi my friend, Jorge Faurie, Foreign Minister of Argentina made it clear on TN (Todo Noticias) TV channel, that Argentina would not grant asylum to Morales. That should be dismissed. :) - --CoryGlee (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Coup d'état is a very loaded term. We would need very widespread, near unanimous, use of that term in reliable secondary sources to use it in wiki voice. The title of the new article is highly problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I never suggested it was a coup. I didn't add that. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I only edited the article; it does really depend on who takes over as to whether it's a coup, but since it was the military turning on Morales, it's at least in the ballpark. edit: update to say that sources are citing or openly using the term because of the police action at least; sources added to article. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I think the blurb should include the fact that Morales resigned under pressure from the military. (Morales says he was not given a choice.) So I prefer the original blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Coup d'état"? Really? Morales disrespected his people will expressed in the 2016 Bolivian constitutional referendum and then he, mostly likely, frauded the 2019 Bolivian general election according to OEA. Then his own people protested for several days asking for a new election and for resignation and it's called a "coup d'état". The article doesn't show any of these complexities. Also, who called this a "coup d'état"? I don't see any reliable sources calling it a coup. The word "coup" is used in the news articles only when they refer to Morales accusations against the opposition.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , my original nomination article target was 2019 Bolivian protests. I don't know who changed it and I don't understand it. It's been confirmed that Gen. Williams Kaliman suggested him to resign but not confirmed he launched a coup. --CoryGlee (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. My opinion was about the article 2019 Bolivian coup d'état. If the target article is another one, I don't know exactly what to say. This nomination is quite confusing now. We should clarify things before going ahead.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm going to be BOLD and put this on hold pending more information and article discussions re. coup. The protest page should be fine as a target, but when I saw the coup page had been made, I ran with it. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "on hold" means - does it mean that no discussion can be allowed? that an item cannot be posted? - and because there is not clear consensus to "hold", I have reverted at this time. If there is consensus to post and an updated article, then an item should be posted. If a new article becomes a better target, then that can be discussed here or in a new nom; I don't see any reason to put a nom on indefinite hold. Best,  Spencer T• C 01:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * An 'on hold' has been used before, it just means 'don't post even if there appears to be consensus, there's another issue being discussed'. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb needs "why?" Is it because of voter fraud? Because he's native? Bad for business? Corrupt? Sadistic? Progressive? I typically forget which South American country Bolivia is, and I'm not the only one. Can we get a hint of the compelling political forces at play here, experts? Keep it vague, if need be, just some agreed motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bolivia, a country you think about so little... Davey2116 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Added Alt3 feat. Jeanine Áñez. Working on her article. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Also, coup title issue sorted.


 * Support, with simple blurb Keep it simple, especially since this is a fast moving, current event. I prefer "After weeks of protests, Bolivian president Evo Morales (pictured) and other high-ranking politicians are forced to resign amid accusations of electoral fraud".<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 03:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose alternative blurbs. His call for reelection comes from the OAS while his resignation comes from the coup. --107.77.223.113 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Agree that shorter is better, but I’d go with the alt blurbs too. Article appears to be in good shape. Suggest timely post. Jusdafax (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted the first alt-blurb as I think the successor is important. I'm about to put Morales' picture in the queue for protection. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe the current blurb reads as if the protesters forced the government to resign. According to all sources this is not the case; the military forced the government to resign. Even as we justifiably agree not to use the term 'coup' as of now, we still cannot avoid the facts of the case. Davey2116 (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. N. Seshan

 * Oppose based on lack of citations.  Kees08  (Talk)   03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider your vote. Article is updated. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as updater. Article needs some copyediting and some more info in Career section. -Nizil (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Bulbul

 * Oppose for now – A bit too early to tell if this is worth posting. Bangladesh is notorious for catastrophic cyclones, but we don't have enough info at present. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per Cyclonebiscuit. This might turn out to be a massively significant storm, but it isn't one currently. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - 18 have died as of now, updated blurb. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the storm is now sufficiently significant and the article is in fairly good shape. NorthernFalcon (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - might help people to get information around it at this juncture much . Devopam (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - and good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutro Shorty concert stampede

 * Oppose trivia. Other sections of the main page may satisfy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While I don't challenge the oppose, I guess it's "only" three four deaths, I do want to ask why you think it's trivia. A human stampede on Saturday is certainly news, no? And I can't imagine it serves better at DYK... Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a very low loss of life, we've had many many articles about stampedes with higher death tolls that weren't considered particularly newsworthy. Venezuela even had a stampede just last year with many more killed.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support This type of events aren't common in Venezuela, with the exception of El Paraíso stampede last year, making the figures noteworthy. Article is in good shape. The incident has received plenty of coverage in the Spanish speaking world (El Mundo, El País, CNN en Español, Infobae, Russia Today and Euronews, just to mention some). --Jamez42 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not common in Venezuela, but there was one only last year? Hard to judge the significance of your claim, or indeed of this event, without knowing how common human stampedes are worldwide every year? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Article is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I want to warn against systemic bias that tends to take place among !voters when news stories of stampedes start popping up. There's often a subconscious assumption that these happen only in developing countries and that therefore the bar to posting should be much higher for those same countries. That should not distract from how individually newsworthy these events are, or how uncommon they can be in specific regions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Newsworthy event and article is in decent shape. There is no reason to assume that stampedes at concerts happen so often that it is trivial to report on it (Category:Human stampedes in 2019 only contains three articles and the other two are not related to musical acts). Other such disasters, such as Love Parade disaster, were featured in ITN as well. As a side note, I'm surprised that a band that is so popular that people trample each other to see it has no article yet. Regards So  Why  13:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Walt's point is well taken - human stampedes happen everywhere. Note the deaths of 3 in anglophone Ireland this year was not even nominated. If we are not going to post every stampede, it follows that we will post only those with large body counts or larger context (government inaction, etc). This has neither.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How many are there? Do we have an article that tells us? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do. They're frequent enough that I don't think a stampede that kills 4 is blurbable per se.   GreatCaesarsGhost   18:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm unsure that this rises to the scale of ITN. We didn't post the similar one in Ireland not long ago, and the article isn't particularly great either. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 United Kingdom floods

 * Oppose unless this flood gets much worse. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – RS coverage seems scant outside UK or maybe EU. – Sca (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, at least at present. It's causing localised disruption but they're not the worst floods in the UK in the recent past and (so far at least) have only resulted in 1 death. We can revisit this if they go on for a prolonged time and/or get significantly worse. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The flooding has now largely subsided and while the one death is tragic I don’t think the flood is ITN level of significance. The article is still a stub as well. P-K3 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Didn't reach the level of notoriety for the front page I feel. I wasn't directly affected by the floods but it was more the "shock" value of it that made it newsworthy.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kartarpur corridor
style="color:#663366">crumbs ]] 15:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle – A welcome change to our usual postings and a marked change to the state of India–Pakistan relations. I am not sure about the wording of the blurb though. Seems one-sided. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Kartarpur Corridor between Pakistan and India is opened, allowing Indian Sikh pilgrims to visit Gurdwara Darbar Sahib for the first time since partition. How's this for the alternate blurb? If too wordy, we can do The Kartarpur Corridor, connecting two Sikh holy sites between India and Pakistan for the first time, is inaugurated. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 2 3 --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment needs copyedit "Pakistan constructed 4.7 KM of dedicated expressways, including 800 meter bridge over the River Ravi". Nolo on notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Added alt blurb. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Of doubtful general interest. – Sca (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Even NYT & BBC are carrying the news of this significant development but oppose using Alt2 as the flow of pilgrims is only one-sided. So giving equal weight to both countries would be a total eyewash. Bigfoot Yeti (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt the word "historic" will ever appear on the Main Page. --- Coffee  and[[Special:Contributions/Coffeeandcrumbs|<span
 * What do you think of the other alt blurb I wrote above? It's a bit wordy but I think it addresses this issue. Mount Patagonia (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3. Important to the international conflict in that region as a positive sign of change. --M asem (t) 03:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Such a goodwill from Imran Khan while the tensions remain high in the region. STSC (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Border corridor between two nuclear nations and undergoing rough diplomatic relations at the same time. Mods please post it now. Regards,  theTigerKing  11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it is a major news, no problems in the article that can prevent this from mainpage. Added the names of  and  as updaters. Good work guys. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready until the article gets a copy edit for grammar. Can't have stuff like "In 2019, Pakistan army placed a bomb on display," or "Pakistan constructed 4.7 km of dedicated expressways, including 800 meter bridge over the River Ravi" linked from the main page. Close, but not ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed those sentences, I think. Kinda hard to see an issue if you don't explain the issue. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3-- Booth  Sift  02:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ayodhya dispute

 * Wait but leaning oppose There is major concern about violence erupting from the decision (pitting Hindu vs Muslim) and that might be worth posting about. But if the court rules (either way) and the net result is most heating gathers but no significant violence, it won't have much importance to the rest of the world. --M asem (t) 06:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A comment : those that are saying this is an important part of the Hindu/Muslim issue in India, this article does not reflect that importance. Yes, it's a long-disputed site, but nothing expresses how major this affects the larger issue between these two faiths. --M asem (t) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support One of the most important judgement delivered by the Supreme Court of India (which cannot be appealed) since independence and pending since 19th century. The judgment does not change the world politics but brings to an end the history of the dispute. The events surrounding the subject have shaped India's history to this date. Is widely covered by the international media (as it is a significant event).  . Regards,  theTigerKing   06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The case has been going on for decades, and is a major judgement for the SC. But I would oppose it as it won’t influence world politics at all. That is the only thing that can stop this from becoming a blurb, however, so this probably will become a blurb... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support pending cleanup grammar is actually not horrible, but there are some sentence structure issues that need fixing like "While we have had a mosque bearing an inscription". CN tags need fixing of course and the timeline section isn't backed completely by the massive BBC reference used to source it. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak suppport - While this might not have any bearing on the international scene, it is still a major landmark case for one of the largest nations on Earth, and my understanding is that this case has cast a huge shadow on Hindu-Muslim relations in India for the past two decades. It's also considered a major victory for the current government, whose party has campaigned for decades to build a temple there. There is still a matter of cleaning up the article as mentioned above. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On a somewhat related note, here's a proposed alternate blurb: In an unanimous decision, the Indian Supreme Court rules the disputed holy site in the northern city of Ayodhya should be given to the Hindus. Mount Patagonia (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support from somebody not coming or related to India. I see some people from the Europe looking for more information today and it should be here on the front page. The importance of this goes way beyond India. « Saper // @talk »  12:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * support - Seems ready for posting as well.BabbaQ (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Although the ruling has received RS coverage, its general significance seems questionable. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a new article being worked on. Should that be the target? Sherenk1 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that the verdict should be a separate article. The original article is short enough to include that, and you lose all the context by separating it. --M asem (t) 17:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - It's one of the more central issues in Hindu–Islamic relations. Connected to this issue are several very important incidents in religious history, such as the Ram Rath Yatra, the Babri Masjid Demolition and the riots that killed over 2000 people in Ayodhya alone. This judgement brings closure to a bunch of pretty key things. Given how Hindu-Islamic relations in general and the relations especially in India in particular are hot topics pretty much worldwide, I think this would be an issue of significant interest to a lot of people worldwide and thus should be in the section. Karan (Theintuitus) (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, a major political and social development in a country of over a billion people. As NYT has put it, "a historic verdict on a dispute that has roiled the country for decades". Nsk92 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt 3. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's just a domestic affair without any global significance. STSC (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. 2409:4071:2015:9D21:87FA:4220:4248:60D (talk)
 * I don't mind it's relating to one country, my main point is the event has no global significance, nor even regional significance. STSC (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - A very notable dispute has been solved. Good to go as well.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is in decent shape and this is international news.Added  and  as updaters, good work. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not ready until the unreferenced parts of the timeline which are not from the large BBC article have references. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute would be a better target, but this seems good to go. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Ready-- Booth  Sift  02:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thich Tri Quang

 * Support, the fact that official Vietnamese media can not avoid reporting Thich Tri Quang´s death underlines his notability as a person of major political influence during the war. The article needs some additional info about his early years and his fate after the war. JimRenge (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added early years and later years Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Mauritian general election

 * Oppose for now. Article needs expansion before it can be posted to the main page. At present it's a borderline stub. Will reconsider on improvements. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present. Not more than a stub and results table is empty. <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b>  <b style=color:white>T</b> / <b style=color:white>C</b> 03:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this time. Barely a stub. I mean the results table is still empty. The infobox hasn't even been updated. There is no info regarding the campaign & all the political parties that contested the election. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 10:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Robert Freeman

 * Oppose not close to main page quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per nom, a lot of work needed on the referencing. P-K3 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

 * Oppose We really don't post the releases of people from prison, even former world leaders. --M asem (t) 23:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom, per Masem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose ibid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all, I don't think a prison release is itself usually notable enough for here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This release is on a technicality as he has not exhausted his appeals yet.  If he was exonerated of charges and released, that might be different. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lula (and several other people) was released due to a new constitutional understanding by Brazilian Supreme Court. Lula was not acquitted of any of the crimes he's accused of.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Politicians around the world get arrested and released frequently. We don't actually post them. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 10:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Joker (2019 film)

 * Oppose Entertainment trivia w/o a blurb. It's sunny and 85 here, but I see SNOW in the forecast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Joker_(2019_film) trivia indeed /s. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow close Hideously shallow trivia doktorb wordsdeeds 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really what the Ongoing section is for.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely ridiculous. 30 minutes after nomination is not a suitable timeframe to determine if something should be snow closed.--WaltCip (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the closure is premature. So I'm re-opening, without prejudice. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I can't see how we can support a piece of contemporary media as an ongoing topic. If there were numerous protests specifically surrounding the film going on worldwide that endured for several days, maybe. But that's not the case here. --M asem (t) 00:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support some kind of a blurb, Oppose ongoing. We can post sports records right? We can post the record sale price of some painting right? So we can post this too. Article is excellent. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are certain sports records that are long-standing points of perfection (eg the four minute mile, or the more recent 2-hr marathon). Random records we don't post unless its part of another story. Same here, especially since we have to add the cavaet of "highest grossing R rated films", in contrast to when Avengers Endgame surpassed all films previously and did not need any clarifying caveats. --M asem (t) 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We've posted numerous times record auction prices for paintings (maybe other crap). The article is excellent, our WP:READERS will surely be interested. WP:ITN seems satisfied to me. I mean ... is it terrible if we push out the blurb for a week old baseball game or a staggeringly irrelevant train accident? Come on.... --LaserLegs (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is nothing to justify ongoing. A blurb could have been considered when it became the highest-grossing R-rated film but that was 24 October (reported 25 October ) so that's old news. The record was also broken in 2016 by Deadpool (film) and 2018 by Deadpool 2 so it wasn't a long-standing record. Joker will probably become the first R-rated film to gross a billion US dollars but a round number in one currency is less relevant in an international encyclopedia (R-rated is also an American rating for American theaters). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for ongoing as this is completely unsuitable for that spot. Oppose blurb per PrimeHunter, it's more significant in the UK as it was reported yesterday that it is now the highest-grossing 15-rated film beating The Full Monty (1997) by £0.2m. However that does indicate how arbitrary the record is when you have to qualify by country and rating. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PrimeHunter. Let's wait till some film beats Gone with the Wind or Avengers: Endgame. The modifier "R-rated" makes me think this achievement is commonplace and to be expected as the world becomes less prudish. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Inappropriate destination. Of doubtful significance. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if The GlittFather had got "a six-figure sum" in royalties for being the co-writer of "Rock and Roll Part 2". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nabaneeta Dev Sen

 * Comment: Could use some mild copyediting and some parts of her Career/Literary Career sections are unreferenced.  Spencer T• C 16:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrifying bullet-point article with many uncited claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Referencing & formatting concerns have been addressed, though there are still some paragraphs uncited. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 10:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is quite a lot of unsourced information - I am searching for and adding sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – She seems quite a significant literary figure. Article has been ausgemistet. SMirC-wink.svg – Sca (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Marked ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article now represents her achievements and has adequate sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   16:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margarita Salas

 *  Oppose  - citations needed for her awards ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Thanks ! Everything seems to be sourced now, so changing to support ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not even close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Citations are needed. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 07:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ping me when improved.BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am adding citations; there is also other information which could be added (honorary doctorates, editor of scientific journals, etc). I will ping others when I think it's ready. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support All content is now sourced, and her professional career is more fully covered. The article could be improved and expanded, but I think it is adequate now for RD. Please ping me if you still have concerns. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Let's post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Danuvius guggenmosi

 * Comment: blurb does not give any hints of notability; should include "leading scientists to believe apes started walking upright X years before previously thought" or something like that.  <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b>   <b style=color:white>T</b> / <b style=color:white>C</b>    23:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously encyclopedic topic, and very exciting find! The article is short, but well referenced and gets the information across in an accessible way. Very nice to see something other than political drama and violence for once. I have added an altblurb to address the above comment.130.233.2.47 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The blurb(s) need work. Altblurb 1 is ready. This lineage may have evolved bipedalism earlier than our lineage, but split from us long before we evolved it. Danuvius guggenmosi made no genetic contribution to us. This discovery does not challenge any aspect of the out of Africa hypothesis, nor the timing of our evolution of any character traits. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose apart from the unreferenced category, there's nothing in the article indicating that the description took place around this time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Brandmeistertalk  10:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still some citation needed and disambiguations in there. Looks like a tendency to overlink too, but that's not a major factor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support despite the typical pro-hominid bias at ITNC. Would we be considering this if it were a ceboidea or (god forbid) a tarsier?  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends. Other sizeable mammals got their chance, olinguito was posted in 2013. Brandmeistertalk  16:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I think new major primate species should be covered in ITN, and the first bipedal great ape should be covered also, since for human ancestors, this meant some 30% increase in brain capacity. 205.175.106.108 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I wish Madelaine Böhme et al was mentioned by name in prose. I hate how our species articles do not document who first described the species. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

 * Support removal so long as we're willing to revisit this when the public testimony starts (subject to quality article updates) --LaserLegs (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm a little confused. Did the impeachment inquiry end and I just missed it? WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support removal  as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal updated now --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose this remains in the news, although major events seem slow. Banedon (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove and add blurb when impeachment happens. Nothing in the interim will be all that important.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal And I suggest that we simply blurb major events if/when they happen. After the Nth "Trump is finished" moment since November 2016, I think we should treat future such moments a little more critically and even-handedly. See: Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory vs. Trump–Ukraine scandal130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Removal per others ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal nothing to see here at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Again weekends! Just yesterday there was a major development with the release of deposition transcripts. I was just considering how to incorporate that into the article. I object to this repeated attempts to remove this item while U.S. is asleep. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you want this to stay in the box, just update the article. I agree the release of transcripts (and the looming start of public hearings) are noteworthy events -- just update the article and it'll stay in. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do. . --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Two more transcripts are expected to drop today; two of the "three amigos". --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal There is extensive text in the article covering events of last Wednesday and Thursday, as well as Monday of this week (yesterday). The requirement for keeping something on ongoing is regular updates, which needn't be every single day; given that the news cycle often slows down on weekends (non-working days in the US), it is understandable that there will be a lull on those days.  We have extensive, multiple paragraph updates about events of three of the last four weekdays.  That's certainly often enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32 and Coffeeandcrumbs. We need to take a breath and stop with these regular attempts to remove this from ongoing when it's pretty clear this is a major event that will continue to generate news. Short lulls over weekends are to be expected. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that "ongoing" was intended for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it may ebb and flow a bit, it is clearly a major recurring news topic, and I don't see any likelihood that this is really going away soon.  Seems silly to remove it now only to put it back in a week when open hearings make another burst of news.  Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per above. I do not understand the obsession with trying to remove events that are clearly still ongoing, and getting regular updates. Davey2116 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - per Jayron32, Coffeeandcrumbs and Ad Orientem. Since a consensus to remove is unlikely, I suggest closing this. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. The impeachment will likely reach a head around Thanksgiving, and by the end of December, it'll be time to remove it barring something extraordinary. No reason to remove it now. I don't really understand the rush to remove this. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   18:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

 * Support removal per nom --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Banedon (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove Always felt more like a blurb to me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal Although the article has been updated somewhat, the details are very mundane for such an event, and if nominated as stand-alone blurbs, they would surely SNOW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal again per others... lots of clean up today! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bye Bye Bye.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong protests

 * Oppose - in the first weekend of November we already have fights between police and protesters in malls leading to over 70 injuries, and  325 arrests (just added to article). Sources describe  a chaotic weekend of protests, and that the protests  show no sign of abating.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Content for November in main article expanded to around 200 words.  - you requested an expansion.  starship  .paint  (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal Per WP:ITN "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". A few lines of prose about a "chaotic weekend" added at the last minute to stave off removal without details about what actually made the weekend chaotic does not make an update. The protests may be "ongoing" but the only time the article gets an update is when someone nominates it for removal. Get it out of the box already. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let’s be reasonable, . This time, List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests has been continually updated, and it has around 1000 words of content. Editors could easily have put that in the parent article, but possibly refrained from doing so to prevent undue weight on the most recent events.  starship .paint  (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose that article too then "Six reporters staged a silent protest at a routine press conference held by the police force." yeah that's not ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal unless a more detailed update is made to the above article. The current article has only a sentence or two update about recent events.  If and when the article is updated to a more substantial description of recent events, I will change my vote.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article expansions are sufficient, article is up to date with regular events related to just about every day of the past several weeks.  Checks off all of the ongoing boxes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal this remains very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove All of life is "ongoing." The continuation of repetitive and predictable events are not even blurbable. Protesters will protest, the "police" will police them. When and if things escalate, we can bring it back.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support removal as it is being updated a bit, but as we move on this ongoing event seems to be becoming the norm for how people spend their weekends in HK ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – (keep) – This persistent political phenomenon remains the No. 1 problem for the world's most populous country, a single-party state – with no end in sight. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal Yes, the event continues to happen, but it is no longer a major story drawing headlines every day, which is what Ongoing is meant for. Long-winded, simmering stories are not good for Ongoing. Should the situation change, we can re-add it, but right now, its like Brexit and Trump Impeachment - we know these are still happening, but not at the top of the news coverage anymore. --M asem (t) 14:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (removal) - The anti-government movement maybe ongoing but the current event is not. Just incidents of thuggery and vandalism at weekends would not make the current event as "ongoing", as far as ITN is concerned. STSC (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - (keep) There is indeed much to add as there are planned future protests, and just a few days ago one protester fell off a buidling and got critically injured. The daughter artice of the page is getting constantly edited as well, with more and more content being added to it. It can be seen that the protest might escalate again. There is always something new to add. For yout information, Hong Kong protests still manage to stay in the news. Therefore, I strongly believe that this article can stay in ITN. Asd34567 (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Constantly being updated, still being one of the biggest crisis ever to have happened in Hong Kong and China. Development of the protests have been extremely volatile and will likely escalate once again if the student falling "some stairs fleeing tear gas" didn't get better from his severe brain injuries. OceanHok (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment this is the third time that this story has been a candidate for removal and only saved when someone updated it after being nominated here -- "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated" this feels like "punctuated updates" I'm not sure it really qualifies for continued inclusion --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, again with the "gotcha" comment: Who cares that someone made the article better after it was brought up for removal. We aren't trying to "catch" people doing anything nefarious here.  We're trying to make articles better.  No one loses because the article was improved when someone brought up the issue here.  Maybe you should back off on these objections, and instead congratulate all of the editors who worked diligently to get the article up to standard.  What's it to you if the article got better?  Isn't that the entire point of this discussion?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal again, per above. The article is still being adequately updated. Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal -- it's still an ongoing event. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal this is very much still in the news, with new events occurring regularly. This continues to make headlines around the world, so I don't see why we should remove it when people are likely going to be coming here looking for answers about it. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 19:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2019 Chilean protests

 * Support removal article is stale and not very detailed to begin with --LaserLegs (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removale Even the stuff from last week is miniscule, the most recent substantive information is almost 2 weeks old. It's stale.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal as per above - Sherenk1 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal as few meaningful updates have been made lately ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Al Ahed FC

 * Oppose secondary to the top-tier AFC Champions League Stephen 00:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't typically post this. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a second-tier competition in one of the weakest confederations. Football already gets plenty of coverage in ITN (see WP:ITNR); the Copa Libertadores and UEFA Champions League are the only continental club competitions that are worth posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I won't argue with this, I wasn't aware of WP:ITNR when posting the nomination. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, that not being on the ITNR list does not preclude this from being posted - it just means that the nomination should illustrate the impact/importance of the event explicitly. Notable firsts, broken records, etc. can all be used to get a non-ITNR event posted. I don't see any for this particular nomination, but don't let that discourage you from making non-ITNR nominations in the future.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of alternative phrases. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I dont see the article supporting either blurb II and III, or should it read "the international competition" instead of "an international competition". That aside, I need evidence of coverage from non-sports publications to justify a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Gay Byrne

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material for a BLP on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Would be better if a few more refs were added to some sentences, but there seems to be at least one ref per paragraph and 64 overall. Good enough. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've misread WP:BLP or WP:V. It's not about how many refs there are per para or how many refs there are in total. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that if you are trying to apply BLP to RD then you have missed the point of at least one of those abbreviations.
 * What is the material challenged or likely to be challenged that lacks a reliable, published source? Kevin McE (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP again before trying to be so clever. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if you fix the [citation needed] issues then you'll stand a chance of the article being posted. Otherwise, you'll see this fail.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support come on guys, it's Gaybo. --Lottolads (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - if you want the article passed - know that the article won't fix itself.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, the CN tags are justified. The very first one I tried to tackle exposed wrong information in the article.130.233.3.131 (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose far too much of the article is uncited. It's already heavily tagged; someone needs to do some research and start placing citations where the cn tags are in order to see this posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still some citation needed tags that need to be sorted before Gay can appear on the front page.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

LeBarón family massacre

 * Oppose – It is usually very clear when a shooting or killing event rises to ITN-level. It receives wall-to-wall coverage. I am not seeing that here. Clearly notable enough for an article but not for ITN. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  12:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yvette Lundy

 * Support – Looks good to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support updated and well referenced --DannyS712 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 New York City Marathon
Comment The 2019 race should be the bold link, not the winners. Added alt blurb patterned after 2019 Boston Marathon.—Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the 2019 race article has some prose, regardless of what article(s) get bolded. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor urban event. ——  SN  54129  15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll disregard this WP:POINTY oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not be rude. York is a beautiful city, and of regional importance, but its marathon is no way suitable for ITN. London, yes, but because it's national: all others are merely provincial. ——  SN  54129  16:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're either making a POINT or exhibiting a legitimate CIR issue? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * this race is one of 6 World Marathon Majors.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Yes, as it turns out I obviously misread the nomination; but so-called editors who do nothing but cast aspersions and bad faith (see above) deserve neither my time nor an apology. Thanks for the heads up though. ——  SN  54129  11:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Item is ITN/R and if other major city marathons get posted, so should this one. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . This event is listed at WP:ITN/R so there is already consensus that it is significant enough to post, meaning both your comments are irrelevant. The only items for discussion are whether the articles are of sufficient quality and what the blurb should be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , this one will be posted if the article quality is of a certain standard. This one is a microstub with a couple small tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf my comment was a reply to the one above it. Sorry if I didn't make that clear, at least to some. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose worst article I've seen nominated at ITN for a loooonnnngg time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose That article needs a lot of work. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wow that article is awful. It's not even a stub, more like a placeholder. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think it's that bad. It has the core bits of information that 90% of readers will be looking for: who won, where they're from, what times. Let's be realistic about how people use Wikipedia. Unless something truly unusual happened, most people aren't going to sit down for an extended reading session. (I assume we're talking about 2019 New York City Marathon.) Zagal e jo^^^ 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That defeats the whole purpose of ITN. <b style=background:#01A;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#06F;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#0AF;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose alt. Article contains a total of three sentences giving no more information than in this blurb, has formatting issues, and only 1 RS. It is in no state to go on to the main page. Neutral on blurb1. <b style=background:#01A;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#06F;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> </b><b style=background:#0AF;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Main article's permalink). There's really an attempt at article there and now we have skeletal tables to help in writing the article proper. I will review it again when it reaches stub level. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 37 words of prose in three sentences is not an article. This needs a massive expansion if anyone wants to see it on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment For reference, the 2019 Boston Marathon got posted and didn't need an overwhelming amount of prose, for any who might want to expand. I'm guessing that the 1500 min prose size that DYK uses would suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Formula One World Championship

 * Comment I didn't read all of Lewis Hamilton but the 2019 season has a one sentence update. 2019 Formula One World Championship tagged and missing refs. 2019 United States Grand Prix no prose. Needs work. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The ITNR instructions say we should be featuring the winner of the Championship (Hamilton) and the winner of the Constructors' (Mercedes), so the altblurb is what should be given your consideration. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Mercedes's WCC win have been a separate INT post since they won it at the previous race? jaclar0529 (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait. There are still two more races left in the season, and ITNR is for the conclusion of the series. Although Hamilton and Mercedes now have unassailable leads, the other positions have not yet been settled. We should wait for the final race; that time could also be used to improve the articles. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per Modest Genius. We don't know what (if anything) significant will happen in the last two races - it's not impossible that Hamilton or Mercedes will be disqualified from the championship, someone suffer a career-ending injury (or worse), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ren Xuefeng

 * Support - He was picked to replace the negotiator for China-US trade talks . STSC (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go as with almost all of Zanhe's nominations. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gert Boyle

 * Support - Seems fine to me. No referecing issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article is well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   07:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RD: Marie Laforêt

 * Oppose for now, needs many citations  Kees08  (Talk)   07:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Mercado

 * Support. Article is sourced and well-written. Morgan695 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't we require that the Work section is fully cited? There are a couple of other uncited statements in the article as well.  Kees08  (Talk)   00:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we do (require works to be sourced). If a single source can cover them all, great, but otherwise we need a ref for each work, or something akin to an ISBN for books to validate they exist. --M asem (t) 00:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * and Fixed.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I spy three more unsourced passages. The bit on his website seems real promotional too, and is cited to his website, pretty much the definition of promo. Sorry if I am being too hard on this, if any other admin feels it is ready to promote feel free. I am on the conservative side of promoting currently since I am a new admin. Thanks for understanding.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Works section is now referenced, Spanish sources accepted AGF. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudy Boesch

 * Support Article is of good length and is well-sourced. 12zaPziP (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Was surprised to see a well-documented article here and not solely focused on the Survivor-related stuff. --M asem (t) 20:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Unusually solid article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thuliswa Nkabinde-Khawe

 * Oppose – Stub-ish article. Can we add a couple more sentences about her career? I also could not verify the birth date and birth place when doing a spot check. We need to add more in-line citations. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tried to do a little bit of improvements. I derived her birth date from her ID number found here. The first six digits are usually the person's birth date (YYMMDD) and in this case, her ID number's first six digits were "730104", meaning she was born on 4 January 1973. She joined the provincial legislature in May 2009 and served as head of a few committees prior to her appointment as an MEC (provincial minister) in May 2019. She was barely in the post for five months before she passed away, so there was not actually time for her to do a lot, but she was married to a very prominent politician in Gauteng, Jacob Khawe.  Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 17:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite your sources for birth date and birth place in the article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support small but alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Rugby World Cup

 * Support. Obviously as a South African. The article looks good. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 11:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's highly notable and should be included in the ITN news section. Well I also included 2019 Rugby World Cup Final as second article which was not originally nominated. Abishe (talk) 13:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I don't see a final match summary anywhere. We usually bold link the final so it might be easier to focus on 2019 Rugby World Cup Final. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ready to post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose final needs prose. Support when this is done. Kingsif (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am extremely sorry and I removed the link 2019 Rugby World Cup Final and you can proceed with 2019 Rugby World Cup instead. Abishe (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You did nothing wrong. I and Kingsif would have brought up the Final match summary issue anyway. It does not matter which article we use. We still need a final match summary in prose in order to post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Question why post the wall of tables minimal prose tournament article instead of the "Final" article? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know - I've added a blurb pointing to Final article instead, but it has even less on the match than the one line of prose the main article does. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What in the world is Pen, Con and Try? Rugby union is played in less than half of the world's countries don't assume everybody knows what those are. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Whereas the item currently on the Main page just assumes the whole world plays? They're actually three separate ways to score: Penalty, Try and Conversion. Maybe more links are needed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed ... This world is so Americentric and Wikipedia is no exception. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment it'd be really nice to put Strasburg back into the image (which was removed for absolutely no reason what so ever) before Duane goes in. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose mention of Man of the Match There is no mention at In_the_news/Recurring_items that this is customary, and the lack of a Man of the Match link specific to Rugby World Cup makes me question its significance.—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added blurb II, which is modelled after the posting from 2015 ("In rugby union, the World Cup ends with New Zealand defeating Australia in the final)—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target article(s) say not much more than the blurb(s). The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I expanded the description of the final on 2019 Rugby World Cup. I must distance myself from the comment above that states this article is a "wall of tables with minimal prose". There is clearly prose in every section except "Statistics". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 - This is a no brainer. It is a major sporting title and the article has enough prose and is well sourced. Spiderone  15:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – FYI, the final article does not have a match summary. If we want to post now, which I think we should, we should only bold link 2019 Rugby World Cup. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the image isn't yet protected. When the bot has done its job I'll post it with a link to the tournament only. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted using a combination of Alt2 (per ENGVAR) and Alt1. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Question could you put the Strasburg image back in till tomorrow morning since it was bumped for 2 days ... or head over to WT:ITN and lets get this image swapping habit either codified or killed?
 * Really no need. MVP Strasburg had two shots at the main page, that's more than enough for local sports competition.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, not a hill to die on. I do wish we would just leave the images alone from now on. Cheers TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well FWIW I agree, it all started with the Nobel Prize bonkers behaviour where it was virtually impossible to say who was going to feature next. But someone knew I suppose.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Kincade Fire, 2019 California power shutoffs

 * Oppose California goes up in fire nearly every summer. Here's also numerous fires going on, so as to focus only on one (or one specific site burned) is inappropriate. And we have already rejected the PG&E shutoff before. --M asem (t) 05:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked through the archives and the only entry for PG&E was not commented on. It was nominated a week late, also by, about two hours before the auto-archive. It's big news here in Cali, but it's more of a temporary disruption than anything for now (and yet power line fires still erupted in numbers...). I'd oppose posting it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The large scale evacuation is the only standout part of this as thankfully the fire has been less destructive than it could have been. As Masem mentioned, it's fire season and something truly exceptional has to happen (such as the concurrent Camp and Woolsey fires last year) for them to reach ITN. The media is great at sensationalizing these fires, especially with public anger toward power companies growing. It's easy to get swept into that media frenzy when, overall, things have been on the quieter side this year up until now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support we post floods during the monsoon season, cyclones during cyclone season, earthquakes in earthquake prone regions - the argument that "California has fires every year therefore we should not post" is not logical unless applied to all regions of the world equally. The PG&E shutoffs are a new thing coming out of the bankruptcy inducing lawsuits after last years fires. Weak only because the articles are no better than the usual disaster stubs that we post but support because of the PG&E angle. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * However, very few have actually died in these fires, whereas we post the above disasters only when there are numerous deaths. --M asem (t) 14:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, great, well if you could just let me know what the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS are for a natural disaster in a highly developed first world nation with enforced building codes and high tech emergency management, and again for barely developed nations with unregulated housing in high risk areas, then we'll be all set. This story, BTW, is "In the news" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, such trivial Cali-fires are now like low-count mass shootings in the US, no longer of any real interest. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor first world inconvenience. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Perhaps if there was demonstrable permanent impact such as environmental damage. The blurbs don't seem to indicate anything more than a temporary inconvenience. Thankfully, California is just too good at evacuating people. Are there any financial figures for damages perhaps? Or number of houses destroyed? These things we can maybe consider posting. Intentional power shut-off and the destruction of a winery does not rise to the level we usually post at ITN. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks like fires are settling down – evacuation orders lifted. – Sca (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per most of the above. Additionally this has been going on for well over a week and the nomination should be treated as stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely on quality. Contrary to the above !votes, this is a significant event which goes much beyond the yearly forest/brush fires. 10% of the population of the world's 6th largest economy are losing power, and not only because of the fires. The 2019 California power shutoff article has tags though, and these would have to be addressed before it can be posted.130.233.3.131 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wildfires in California are about as unremarkable an occurrence as tropical storms in Florida or monsoons in India. The event would need to be particularly astonishing or catastrophic to distinguish itself. This currently is neither. WaltCip (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)