Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 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: Gurudas Dasgupta

 *  Support  article is updated with CE and enough details are available. — Harshil want to talk? 05:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks good to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  13:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   20:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Cotabato earthquakes

 * Support – Everything looks good enough to post. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Three big earthquakes (> 6 magnitude) within 16 days, God must be quite angry. STSC (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No more so then She usual is - magnitude 6 earthquakes happen about every 3 days. This is neither particularly large nor deadly as far as quakes go.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Earthquake bigger than magnitude 5.5 is normally classified as major earthquake. Triple major earthquake happened at one place is unusual. STSC (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Significant enough, article in good shape. Brandmeistertalk  09:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support g2g. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A series of earthquakes hit rather than hits but I'm guessing this could be ENGVAR, and will change it on request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Cystic fibrosis medication approved

 * Comment: The drug itself needs a standalone article for evaluation. Additionally, it is worth noting that this medication consists of 3 components, 2 of which have previously been used to treat CF (ivacaftor and tezacaftor), so in some sense, those parts of the drug aren't "new".  Spencer T• C 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to no target article of the drug.  I Need Support  :V 02:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * US-centrism alert This news item is clearly only about the United States. Not necessarily a problem in itself, but that fact, at least, must be mentioned in the blurb. I have no idea whether the drug(s) are already used elsewhere in the world. Are they? It would be nice (perhaps important?) to know whether this is a world first event or not. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unless Trikafta is expanded, sourced from MEDRS. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current bolded link to Elexacaftor/ivacaftor/tezacaftor is just a three-sentence stub. No indication of how this is anything more than another run-of-the-mill drug approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 04:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above valid concerns. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as article is a stub ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Narrow impact. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No reason to think this is any more significant than any other medicine approval. Article is woeful. Modest Genius talk 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spill

 * Oppose didn't we blurb this? I'm seeing practically nothing of substance in the article for the last week or so. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Nominate a new blurb if there is a significant piece of new information. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Ditto. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there probably won't be any major updates until they find the actual cause of the spill, a lot of speculation until then. Plus looks like there's been a bit of edit warring going on yesterday and today ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing a large number of ongoing updates; the spill happened and triggered clean-up events, that was ITN-blurb worthy, but its not like any crisis changes from this point onward. Post-investigation results would be likely appropriate, depending. --M asem (t) 15:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Pakistan train fire

 * Weak support big disaster, article just beyond stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - As above Sherenk1 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality, and well referenced. It's a bit short, but what is there is fine.  -- Jayron 32 12:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Sketchy. (And were they "gas" stoves or "kerosene" stoves?) – Sca (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kerosene, per source. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as it's just large enough, but more expansion would be nice as news comes in ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Guardian quotes Railways Minister Rashid Ahmed saying the fire was caused by the explosion of a gas canister, and "the presence of kerosene with the passengers in the moving train further spread the fire." (Three sources added.) – Sca (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per me already thinking of it  ——  SN  54129  17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The event is notable enough but the article could do with more content. Particularly a map showing the location of incident would be useful, as would context of any similar events. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it's got a map, which Liaquatpur is marked on. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not in a way that you can see looking at the thumbnail, or indeed in any way other than opening the map full size and searching for Liaquatpur on it with no clue about where to start looking. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus the sources are quite vague about the location. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Expansion would be lovely, but it's good enough to post now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support seriously notable in news, however article pretty short. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose disaster stub --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Every article was once a stub. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article in a good shape. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . Wasn't sure whether "on a passenger train" needed to be part of the link or not &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Shurijo fire

 * Comment I think the blurb needs to say that the castle is in Okinawa, Japan, and its main hall has been destroyed by the fire. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added an alt blurb partly incorporating your suggestion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as it is a major event involving a World Heritage Site. I'd suggest a change to the blurb to add more context for readers unfamiliar with the subject – something along the lines of "A fire engulfs Shuri Castle, a Japanese World Heritage Site dating back to the 14th century" – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support though the section of the article on the fire should be expanded. This is a historic UNESCO site, and the fire is being covered internationally. Such a tragedy. Davey2116 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but wait until expanded. There is just not enough material right now to post this to the main page. Conceding occasional exceptions, we usually prefer events nominated at ITN to have their own stand alone article. As of this comment we have exactly four sentences. That's not enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on added background below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with AO. Very little on the fire in the article. Jusdafax (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in principle per AO, Alt blurb II preferred. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the article most of the buildings destroyed only dated back a few decades, mostly having been rebuilt in 1945. If this was about the original buildings being destroyed, it'd be newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually destroyed in 1945 and rebuilt in 1992. The heritage refers to the stone foundations which were not destroyed in the fire.  Stephen 10:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, let’s make it a strong oppose then. I’ve got clothes older than the buildings destroyed. This is completely misleading and not in the slightest newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose large swaths of the article without references not suitable for MP --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM. (Plus, apparently no casualties.) – Sca (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the section of the article about the fire isn't very detailed. Expansion needed ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is only one short paragraph about the fire, and even that's not fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose tragic, but too much of the article is completely unreferenced. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As of yet all information in public during since it happened is reflected to the "short" description. Officials has just begun investigations. No substantial expansion on the fire is not expected in few days. --Aphaia (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 World Series

 * Oppose at the moment. Quite a few unsourced statements in the game summaries, and the Background section is fairly anemic.  Sounder Bruce  04:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the article has 18 kb of prose and 92 unique cited references, in addition to some "further reading" sources. Usually, ITN/R nominations are empty but for tables. Please be more specific on why you're opposing this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The team background subsections lack anything substantial about their regular season form. As an example, MLS Cup 2018 has a full paragraph about the regular season. It's a bit of a minor point, but I think it's a basic thing that needs to be considered for a high-traffic article.  Sounder Bruce  04:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's what a GA needs. Not what ITN criteria ask for. You're comparing a 2018 article to an article for a series that ended less than an hour ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The regular season summaries were added before the match and it's been pretty standard like that for other soccer ITNs (2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2019 UEFA Champions League Final). It's not unreasonable to expect the same of a sports final with similar levels of coverage and even more time to prepare.  Sounder Bruce  04:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2018 MLS Cup article is about the same size with the same number of references as this article. If there's any serious issue in sourcing or accuracy, that's one thing. There's WP:NODEADLINE for getting it to GA status. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support There is always room for improvement but this article is well referenced and more than adequate for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural Note: This nom appears to duplicate one under the correct date (30 October). They should probably be merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , fixed. I wondered why I didn't get an EC with Coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, with particular support for Alt 1 - this is obviously a major sporting event that should be included. Plenty of precedent in prior years for inclusion as well. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with AO that this article is well-referenced. It’s also reasonably complete. The blurb might include the notable fact that this is the first time the Nationals franchise has won the championship. Jusdafax (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  05:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Image placed in prot queue. I'd like to give the oil spill a full 48 hr (which ends in a few hours) before we post this, but this is what we expect a sport tourney result article to look like - summary of main games, additional details around the event, etc. Yes, there's one CN but that's a box score result show should be easy to source. --M asem (t) 06:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - 'Tis their first Series win. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment did we include a blurb about it being the franchise's first win when the Blues or Raptors won? Unless it was included for them, I'd say it's fine to exclude it. --Plasma Twa 2 06:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the Raptors in the NBA Finals, it was mentioned that they were the first Canadian champs.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted —Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I posted a note at WP:ERRORS, the pic was swapped out by without explanation -- I'm sure there is a reason I'm just wondering why. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Gregory (ice hockey)

 * Support Looking OK to me. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good sources, reasonable summary of career. Teemu08 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cong Weixi

 * Support - Overall the article seems OK. STSC (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a newly expanded article that is well sourced. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - everything seems well sourced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: John Witherspoon (actor)

 * Oppose nearly twelve hours later and no sign of any improvement or interest here.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still missing many citations. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) US Recognition of Armenia Genocide

 * Oppose Per Armenian Genocide recognition there are precedents already, similar to successive legalization of some issues by various countries. Brandmeistertalk  08:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posturing over Syria. Could be added as a "reaction" to that article, which is already posted.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – One hundred years too late. No impact. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The US formally recognizing something? Not news. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – You have to listen to the speeches in the House of Representatives to comprehend the challenges prior the recognition ! Being sarcastic by writing: "One hundred years too late" or "US formally recognizing something? Not news", is just nonsense ! Obama could not even use the term genocide when he was a president ! The Turkish aggression was mentioned by Pelosi as a prelude to the resolution, since the aggressor is being the same ! UniSail2 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The US has a long history of making friends with horrible people and turning a blind eye to the atrocities they commit. That we should finally concede obvious facts to thumb our noses at them when friendship turns sour is neither commendable nor noteworthy.   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Most important country in the world recognizes the second largest genocide in modern history and people here are trying to vote this down? 5.44.170.9 (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What does "Most important country" even mean? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 17:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Too little, too late. WaltCip (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor development in United States-Turkey relations. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose slow handclap for arriving a "few" years late. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not clear that this represents a formal recognition on the part of the United States. It's a resolution passed by one chamber of Congress. The President could probably issue such a declaration unilaterally, but for Congress to do so would require both houses to pass a bill and get the POTUS to sign it or override his veto. At present I don't believe the blurb is factually accurate. The article may need to consider this as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , a terrific point. Even if the Senate also passes the resolution, it's highly likely that Trump will veto it. After all, he is quite beholden to strongmen like Erdogan. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The above two are factually inaccurate. You are confusing the passage of Bills (which require both House and Senate, and Presidential approval; a.k.a. "laws") with the passage of Resolutions. The result of Bills is law, in the context of US Code, which requires definition of acts and punishments and so on. Obviously, the state of Turkey is not a subject of the US Code, and thus a Bill concerning the Armenian Genocide cannot be made, and the proper avenue for such is a Resolution. I find the sniping about whether Trump would veto such a hypothetical Bill to be unnecessary and uninformed. You're opining on things that are in the news - do you read the news?130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Lebanese prime minister resigns

 * Wait until resignation is accepted by the Lebanese President. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 00:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait per above, especially given that Hariri already once resigned, only to withdraw it later. If we know Hariri's successor as well, we can mark this ITNR.130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A change in PM is not ITNR unless it is the result of a general election. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you're right.130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ....which isn't to say it can't be nominated under the regular process, only that it is not ITNR. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose only because of quality of the article about Saad Hariri. I have placed some hopefully helpful tags on the BLP article. Shouldn't be impossible to source but some of the trivia about his family should just be removed if a source cannot be found. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support despite the lacking of Saad Hariri— comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The resignation has to be accepted first before becoming legally effective and second, the article has tag issues. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per collection of comments above re. article quality and yet-incomplete process. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove Brexit from ongoing

 * Support removal, as it has been postponed and the main next event will be the election which is a separate story. --Tone 10:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – This article is a mess. I would usually say wait a few days but fuck it, get this ugly useless article off the main page. It is a waste of MP space. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Suppot removal now's the time for a brief pause here. It seems that nothing directly related to Brexit will happen until the General Election debacle is resolved, so we can remove this for the time being. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support/Remove A different target article needs to be used next time this is nominated for Ongoing. Or the Brexit article should be a very general summary of events thus far, with the granular details in the sub-articles. It's actually gotten better than the last time I read through it, so there's hope for it yet.130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove. Agreed. The deadline has been extended from 31 Oct, probably until January. Whilst political manoeuvring will continue, the issue now moves on to if/when there is an election. Fine to let it drop off ITN, but we should be prepared to bring it back if a withdrawal agreement passes. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Additions to the article continue to be made through as recently as today. Article is still being updated.  -- Jayron 32 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove we'll blurb the election results obviously. There will be ongoing posturing and bickering but with the "flextension" accepted there is nothing significant in the Brexit process now until parliament passes some legislation. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – Yeah, it's on hiatus for the time being. Thank goodness for small blessings. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Removed While the election cycle will obviously circle around Brexit in the UK, there is clearly not going to be any direct Brexit action until afterwards. Pulling per above. --M asem (t) 13:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal per above.  Spencer T• C 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for a day since there was just a big development. Can pull afterwards. Banedon (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been removed already. So the only way to go back is via new nomination. – Ammarpad (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as the discussion remains open consensus can theoretically change. That said, I don't see that as likely and my guess is the discussion will be closed tomorrow (today?) at some point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Banedon. We should've kept it in ongoing for about a day after the last development, for people who are reasonably late to the news. Davey2116 (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Still dominating the front pages and still evolving as the new phase of an election is started, with daily updates to the timeline on 28 and 29 October. Andrew D. (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I pointed in my Removal post above: the UK election is clearly going to cycle around Brexit, but there are not going to be any direct Brexit actions until that election is over. When the election is over, and the new gov't focus returns 100% to Brexit before Jan 31 2020, then we can talk about readding it where there will be direct Brexit news. --M asem (t) 12:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The calling of an election is itself a direct effect as this upsets the schedule of the fixed term act. This is triggering the resignation and retirement of a number of high-profile politicians.  The economic, financial and logistical planning and publicity which was targeted on Oct 31 is now being reset to focus on a new date which is even more uncertain.  There are plenty of direct effects as businesses and migrants try to cope with this.  These effects are quite considerable compared to the Trump impeachment matter, which seems to have less impact and less readership – the Brexit article is getting about double the number of readers of any of the other ongoing articles and |Brexit|2019_Chilean_protests|2019_Hong_Kong_protests|2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria the trend is that it's bouncing up. I was in the USA all last week and nobody in the real world talked about those other things once.  Anyway, as Masem has an opinion about this, they are not impartial.  As we have no consensus, their admin action should be reverted. Andrew D. (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a very clear consensus. No further action required. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kay Hagan

 * Support On balance, almost entirely referenced, with only three three tags early on in the article body. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose it is unknown why the politicians is death, but i Support it for article quality and importance. Max923 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A former senator is notable Poydoo (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for your information, notability is not at issue for RD nominations; anyone that merits an article is notable enough to be listed in RD. The only purpose of this discussion is to evaluate article quality. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Her committee assignments (apparently) may or may not have happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Committees are cited, haven't looked at the rest of the article.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose article not up to scratch. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way too many CNs throughout the entire article. — Chevvin 12:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and, I have filled in the citations. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Great work by Hameltion. Davey2116 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well done on getting it up to snuff. Article looks solid.  -- Jayron 32 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good work --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing appears to have been fixed.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 World Rally Championship

 * No, no, no. Too many bold links. If you want to have any chance of getting this posted, delete all your suggested blurbs and start with just 1 blurb with 2019 World Rally Championship as the only bold link. --- Coffee  and crumbs  14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja are in no shape to be bold linked. Unbold them. 2019 World Rally Championship needs a section on 2019 Rally Catalunya and at least a paragraph summarizing the whole year's results above §Season summary section. I also don't see any sources cited for the §Results and standings section at all. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment All done. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Normally, we summarize the whole year's results in the lead. Moreover, the season hasn't finished. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The entire article is a summary of results anyway. Support --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C&C, as well as what may be a little anti-French bias in the blurbs. Even if you take his advice though, the article has an update needed banner, which is concerning for an ITN article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once the bolded article is updated with 2019 Rally Catalunya. I have edited the blurbs. Main article appears to be otherwise well-sourced. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we postpone it until the season is finished (in November)? It would be like "​In motorsport, World Rally Championship concludes with Ott Tänak and Martin Järveoja (both pictured) winning the Drivers' and the Co-Drivers' Championship." We would have time to make the articles much better aswell. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and comment: Given how it's been fifteen years since a non-French driver won the championship, not to mention that it's the first for Estonia and the first since Didier Auriol for a Toyota factory driver to win the WRC, I don't see why wouldn't we put this in the news column. As for Autosport though, there has been some concerns in rallying circles over it being RS, e.g. Tanak's supposed move to Hyundai which is neither thoroughly confirmed nor debunked as of the time of this writing. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to include their nationality in the blurb, as they were not competing for Estonia (if anything, their primary affiliation in this context is Toyota). --LukeSurlt c 10:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, just after Tänak finished the race, they only played the Estonian anthem in the podium. But not Japanese. If a driver wins a race, they play both – in this case we later heard the Belgian (Neuville) and South-Korean (Hyundai) anthem. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vladimir Bukovsky

 * Support Good article = good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Appears well-referenced.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2019 Hong Kong Protests

 * Remove Orange tagged and stale. Last update in the List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests article was October 20th. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait The last substantive update was for events that occurred October 23rd, and the orange tag had been mis-applied. It is approaching staleness, but I'd say give it 24-48 hours to see if more recent events get added.  -- Jayron 32</b> 12:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (removal) - The article has been hijacked by activists, and seriously violated the WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX policies. The "ongoing protests" have been only the weekend routine of vandalism on subway stations and Chinese-owned shops while from Monday to Friday would be quiet. Shouldn't have been put on Wikipedia's main page because it would compromise on the neutral stance of Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These are some disputable claims. The article does not seem egregiously biased to me as it does to you; in fact, it reads to me as objective as one might reasonably hope for, given such a sensitive subject. I also do not see how merely acknowledging on ITN that these protests are ongoing would compromise the neutral stance of Wikipedia, and saying that these protests should never have been posted (even at their height) seems unfair in my opinion. Davey2116 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is they don't tell you much about the ugly side of the protesters (rioters) in the article(s). Posting an item on ITN is a way to promote the articles on Wikipedia main page; if Wikipedia promotes a heavily one-sided article then that would very much compromise on the neutrality of Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not think the article is heavily one-sided at all. The article does include information on violent protesters. Please see the 'controversies' section of the article, which is pretty objective to me. If I had to say, it's clearly more negative about the protesters than positive; there are indeed a few sentences which could be construed as 'redeeming', but that's because they're supposed to be. I think the section is quite comprehensive. If you disagree, WP:SOFIXIT by adding more information supported by WP:RS. Also, I agree with the consensus that the protesters should not be called 'rioters' in the article. The term 'rioters' is charged and WP:POV, while 'protesters' is neutral. Davey2116 (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comprehensive? Far from it, they have not mentioned the protesters (rioters) have damaged hundreds of traffic lights, and the beating up of elderly men and women and many more other violent incidents. I did try to correct the imbalance in the article but my edits were quickly removed by the activists. We're seeing now just weekends of vandalism by some students then they going back to college during weekdays. STSC (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have glanced through the 18 edits you've made to the article, to see for myself whether your incredible claim, that hitherto-unnamed activists have been brigading and whitewashing the article (which would be a serious transgression of WP:COI and WP:NOTHERE, at the very least), is true. The one sourced edit among them still stands. Most of the other edits are wording changes; the justified ones ('triad members' to 'suspected triad gangs', 'citizens' to 'protesters', etc.) are still there, while, for instance, the unsourced invocation in Wikipedia's voice of the charged WP:POV term 'rioters' (which is itself an issue of vehement disagreement between the two sides of the protests) does not stand. So as an uninvolved observer, I don't see much evidence that activists have been quickly removing your edits. Moreover, none of your edits address what you believe to be an omission of the allegations that protesters damaged hundreds of traffic lights, and the beating up of elderly men and women and many more other violent incidents. You haven't edited the page since September 12; if you feel so strongly about this, then I invite you to add these to the article. I would be with you 100% if your sourced edits are removed with no explanation. Davey2116 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - I have added the "100 traffic lights" issue to the article.  - if you are so aware of missing information, then why aren't you adding it?  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as noted last time, the protests are so large as to have multiple articles that should be checked for updates, and in this case, the relevant one is List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests... which hasn't had anything since Oct 20. I would wait 24-48hr (this nom) to make sure nothing boils up in HK and updated here. --M asem (t) 13:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - I have updated the child article and the parent article  of events on 26 and 27 October.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Relative to the magnitude of the daily events that were occurring when this was ongoing, these two updates aren't really significant. This is not dismissing that the protests aren't continuing, just that the amount of news-worthy stories out of them has dropped considerably, so removal is appropriate at this time. --M asem (t) 13:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose / Wait until after this weekend per above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is waiting for a week going to help? Is one update a week enough to keep a story in "ongoing"? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just barely, yes. The ongoing criterion sets the oldest blurb as a guideline for the cutoff. Besides, by its very nature this protest is expected to give its most major updates each weekend. We do not have enough information at this time to predict with reasonable confidence that no major updates are imminent. Davey2116 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support removal per Masem and STSC. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Currently the oldest ITN blurb is the Japan Series posted on 23 October, any ongoing article with the older update than 23 October (the date of the oldest blurb) should be removed according to ITN criteria. STSC (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – still ongoing, prominently in the international press, as of yesterday, from what I can tell. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker. "Articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" per WP:ITN. - STSC (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The next sentence of WP:ITN reads: "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." 2019 Hong Kong protests was updated today with information about the "silent majority". It was updated less than 48 hours ago with information about water cannons used by police at a recent protest. Events continue to occur, at least weekly so far, that lead me to believe that the article will continue to be updated in the future, as it has been this past week. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose remains very much in the news. Objections based on the NPOV tag can be addressed simply by deleting the tag (lol) and besides historically we've left articles on the template as long as they were untagged when they were posted. PS, I see someone has already removed the tag. Banedon (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal far less about this in the news than other such niche events, article is struggling to find something to really report that would be considered encyclopaedically valuable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - an temporary ban against doxxing of police has been approved by the courts. That's new and has ramifications on free speech.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Still highly notable Poydoo (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've taken the time to address concerns by STSC, Masem, The Rambling Man and CaradhrasAiguo who voted to remove. Things are still going on, and added to the articles - for more, see my responses above.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: I came back this morning and see that the orange tag is removed. There is pretty bad edit warring going on. Possible BLP vios are noted and then reverted. I have voted multiple times in favor of this item in Ongoing, when this event was heated and fluid. Now, things have calmed down, and we have a few new pieces of information here and there: indignation from a mosque, Chinese Communist Party comments about Catalan protests, and court orders against doxxing. These come at the cost of featuring occasional BLP and NPOV vios from the front page. "Waiting" for events as a means to keep something in Ongoing is very much CRYSTAL, and could just as well preclude removing ANY Ongoing item. On balance, do the few new edits justify keeping this in Ongoing, against what is very clearly non-consensus about the article's content (see talk)?130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 130, I believe this is the talk page section you are referring to. We have only 6 sources provided. Of these, the 5th source overlaps with the 1st and the 4th. The content of the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th sources are all reflected in the article already. The 3rd source is in Chinese, so I held off on including it (please provide an English one). People claiming bias and missing things must provide sources to back up their claims, after all, they already have the knowledge about what is missing!  starship .paint  (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am not editing this article at all (I did put in a revert request yesterday), I merely took a look at the talk page once I saw the orange tag a few days ago. The non-consensus goes far beyond that particular section of the talk page. The problems with attributing suicides are clearly BLP issues, especially since some of them are arguably not even suicides. The Suicides section includes someone who died while trying to jump onto a inflatable cushion, for example.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep as the protests "show no signs of relenting" and continue to make international headlines. Citobun (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Question what do we need to do to get this stale zombie article out of the box? After being ignored for a week, List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests now has two tiny one sentence updates -- surely not something we'd keep on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests is not the article linked to on the main page. It's 2019 Hong Kong protests. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To stress this point again, when we have a long sprawling event like these protests, it is not unreasonable that the major updates fall into sub-articles within a summary-style approach with the "main" topic page receiving far fewer. Assuming the sub-articles are getting updated with significant news-making updates and are linked easily from the "main" page, that's the situation to judge in keeping an ongoing at ITN for this situation. --M asem (t) 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove We've really got to work on the criteria for ongoing. There is a clear inertia problem with getting things down once they are up.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion here that you may consider sharing your views: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news. At present, people seem to be leaning toward the status quo.  Spencer T• C 17:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Great work by starship.paint in updating the article. Davey2116 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, the the way we're doing this is to ignore the article for a week until it's nominated for removal, then add a few sentences of prose while insisting "it's still in the news and still being updated"? This is the second week in a row it's been nominated for removal as stale only to be "saved" by some last-minute updates. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, you're more interested in "winning" a discussion like this than seeing the article in question improved? You'd rather people did NOT update the article?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "winning" we had a stale article in the box for a week which is a disservice to our readers, and the only reason anyone paid attention to it was to keep it on the main page. That's all. If the article were getting regular quality updates I'd not be advocating for it's removal. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But do we really need the consensus to remove an 'ongoing' listing? Shouldn't an admin just remove it as soon as the article is not very updated (according to ITN criteria)? STSC (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a nomination and consensus are both required to get something out of Ongoing. See this page's Talk for my Nth essay on why this is a problem. Having a higher standard for Ongoing removal than for Ongoing addition means that there's a kinetic trap-like accumulation articles on the main page (which is incredibly valuable internet real estate). I can't remember what year the 2013 Ebola Outbreak got removed from Ongoing, and some very niche political events enjoyed long stays in Ongoing.130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose (keep) – Still the No. 1 political problem in the world's most populous country. (That's populous, not 'popular.') – Sca (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Activity will increase today (expecting mass rallies on Hong Kong Island, conflicts in Prince Edward and Central). I will try to update the article by tomorrow (Tuen Mun scuffles, Yuen Long conflicts) and produce a summary of October events. The protests itself are in a bit of a disjointed state but it is still ongoing. OceanHok (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to recent improvements, noteworthy piece of info for the news. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Argentine elections

 * Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments I am confused about the Results section. The only sub-section with prose is primary elections and it makes it sound as if there will be another general election sometime in the future ("[such and such] all received enough valid votes to participate in the general election"). The un-updated Electoral system section clears this up, but only with inference from the reader. Perhaps make it more clear under Results that the stipulated second round was cancelled. Section Opinion polls is empty, and perhaps the link to the dedicated article about this should be folded into prose elsewhere.130.233.2.235 (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Fernándaz's article is orange tagged and can't be featured until it is resolved.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not enough results prose, eh? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Argentina election results LIVE updates: Fernández wins as voters turn on Macri --AbDaryaee (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. There is no prose results for the general election in the "results" section.  Please update with actual text so we can post this.  The Canadian election below missed being posted because no one who wanted it posted was willing to do the work to write about the election.  If someone does wish this to be posted, please update.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough prose, not enough sourcing in existing prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is not important event yet for me. -- Max923 talk 20:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck sock vote. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 10:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose just tables and pre-event prose. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Conyers

 *  Weak Oppose  I added one CN and though I'm not tagging it, the list of caucus memberships needs a bunch of refs. Some of the caucuses are likely trivial and could be removed if no one can find a source. All in all the article is in decent shape and should not require much work to get it posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I dealt with the CN tag. Can source the caucus memberships. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , all sourced, except for the "Congressional Cement Caucus" (?), which I removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sad to hear it. Article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Paul Barrere

 * Oppose for now Needs lots of sourcing. And oppose blurb, doesn't merit one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has sourcing problems and is definitely not worthy of a blurb. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted to Ongoing) Dissolving of Chilean government

 * Comment Although Sebastián Piñera was already in ITN, the article is pretty horrible. It has NPOV and citation needed tags. I already removed 2,500 bytes worth of unsourced dubious information a couple of days ago. That had been tagged with since December 2017. Would be great if this article was better. --Pudeo (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pudeo. The Piñera article is a BLP disaster zone and cannot be linked on the main page in its current state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per two above -- too biased is the article of Sebastián Piñera. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment added altblurb minus link to Piñera (yes, it's a bit of a disaster that will take a while to clean). Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb or ongoing – The alternative blurb doesn't link to Sebastián Piñera. 2019 Chilean protests seems fine quality-wise, and ought to be on the main page, possibly as an Ongoing event (if it continues). Over a million people were reported to have protested this weekend. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * to ongoing. If there is support for a blurb, please keep discussing &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Ethiopian riots

 * Comment Nothing? --Varavour (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 – We should be specific about where (Oromo) but linking to the journalist-activist is undue at this time. Oppose calling it "riots". RS use the word "protests". (See Google Search results of Ethiopian riots and Ethiopia protests.)--- Coffee  and crumbs  00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2, tweaked wording per Coffeeandcrumbs; marking ready.  Spencer T• C 02:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed

 * Wait According to most media sources (including the Fox News link, which says “believed to be” Baghdadi) his death is still awaiting final confirmation, and given that he has been incorrectly reported dead many times we should be extra cautious to make sure his death is reliably confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would definitely support upon confirmation; probably the world’s most wanted individual for the past several years. EternalNomad (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once confirmed - Aviartm (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment CNN is reporting he was killed when he detonated a suicide vest, so it should be described as a suicide. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support once confirmed Although evidence is pointing out that he likely is deceased at this time. I agree with EternalNomad that caution should be taken. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 Nonstopmaximum (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support suicide scenario Rumour is he offed himself, so no "we got him" moment for Trump. Could be fake news, but Osama bin Laden wasn't exactly proven dead, either. Offered a blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He's assumed room temperature because the intelligence people found the murderous little SOB and the military went in. Whether he chose to go out like Hitler in the bunker or guns blazing is not material to my mind. President bone spurs had nothing to do with it either way. Same was true of Obama and bin-Laden. That said, if he did throw his own off switch that should be reflected and I would support the alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hitler would have had no clue what to do with two wives. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There were so many things about which Hitler had no clues. – Sca (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We have contradicting blurbs here. Article, even-though detailed, contains sketchy narrations and an interesting timeline of the times he was reported to be dead/injured before. We should really be careful not rush in spreading this, notwithstanding the rushed reports of the "reliable sources" who are in competition to break the news first. Wikipedia should wait for the FACTS to emerge, after the hype dissipates. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb once confirmed per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Added a simplified alt blurb. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wives not newsworthy. If posting before official confirmation, use blurb in passive voice: Man believed to be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is killed during a US raid in Idlib, Syria. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 3 Trump confirmed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzn7lVBSq0g Added alt-blurb 3 on the basis of what Trump has announced 5.44.170.9 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – Independent confirmation would be best. Note, however, that Trump says unequivocally that he's dead. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the Orange One is absolutely a trustworthy reliable source. WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say DT was independent – hence the however. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: He's more a loose cannon writ large. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support suicide theory, just confirmed by the President of the United States. --CoryGlee (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support if confirmed. NYT suggests death has not been officially confirmed yet. Once people are confident enough, it's a no-brainer for the main page. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 13:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the article is listing him as dead with heavy RS usage. Seems like he is very likely dead. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support it's been announced. I'm not sure what further proof we need.  Calidum   13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Going against the flow here, I'm not sure he's worth a blurb. He wasn't Osama. RD anyone? – Sca (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Through sheer magnitude of ISIL's aftermath (including the transnational destruction of cultural heritage) he's at least equal to Osama. Hence blurb. Brandmeistertalk  14:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't create new pages, but we should consider establishing a new article about his death. Just how we have one about Osama's death 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The Atlantic calls it an "end of an era", also even saying it is more notable than the death of Osama bin Laden because al-Baghdadi still had followers both as a head of "state" and a religious leader. US officials confirmed to death so good to go. --Pudeo (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that he technically wasn't killed by the US forces as he detonated his suicide vest killing three of his children at that. This has been confirmed by the US government, so I strongly believe we should consider one of the blurbs that mention that it was suicide. Also, I am pretty sure that both suicide and child murder and forbidden in Islam so there's an argument to mention that he killed himself and his children if nothing else then to denounce this animal further. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, with preference for alt blurb 2. The details about his death have now been officially confirmed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Note to admins: if you're going to use either Alt-blurb 1 or 2 take note that he wasn't killed in the city of Idlib, but rather somewhere in the Idlib Governorate. Thank you. 5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support don't use altblurb 1 or the original. Both make claims which don't appear to be correct. (He killed himself, but his wives didn't, they just had suicide vests.) I prefer 2 over 3, since as horrible as what he did may be, it doesn't seem to be the sort of detail for ITN. Edit: I would add 3 may not be correct either. I'm pretty sure Trump gave some indication they weren't sure who's children these were. Most likely they were Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's children, but it doesn't sound like they've confirmed it via DNA tests or anything like that at the moment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Alt2 – Must admit it is, momentarily at least, today's No. 1 story in RS-land. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 Article is of quality to post, and clearly a ITN blurb. Alt2 seems the most accurate to the points of what has been confirmed. --M asem (t) 15:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 as per everyone. -- Rockstone  talk to me!   15:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2 as the event clearly qualifies, and Alt2 gives the most detail without being overly wordy. The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. An article about the raid was recently created. Wondering if there should be a wikilink to it. --Deansfa (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per others. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . Decided not to pipe in Barisha raid due to orange tag — will wait till this is resolved. El_C 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the orange tag, but I remain still not confident enough about the article's quality to pipe it. I open the floor to comments regarding that. El_C 16:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with removal of the tag (was about to do it myself) but I think we should probably wait at least a few hours for sources with more detail to be available so the article can be a bit more developed. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Considering that Trump has been known to lie on multiple occasions and there is no independent verification, I would clarify that this is a claim by the US government, not a verifiable fact. All sources named above merely repeat Trump's statement or use vague terms, such as "believed dead" (AFP), "Trump says..." (AP), "says Donald Trump", "There has been no official confirmation..." (BBC) or "target believed to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi" (Fox News). If we post this, it should thus probably be prefaced "According to the US government, ..." Regards So  Why  16:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is sloppy and irresponsible in the extreme to post in Wikivoice that "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself during a US raid" when both the BBC and Guardian   sources attribute the suicide to Trump's tweet (elsewhere I have seen this attributed to a US official). BBC: "The fugitive leader... killed himself... President Donald Trump has said." Guardian: "US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria."  this is not to suggest in the slightest that Trump is "lying." Please rephrase to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead after a US raid in Idlib, Syria." Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all RS sources are saying he killed himself. Some are attributing this to Trump, but many had already confirmed his death and the manner of it from government sources. The bottom line is that no RS sources are questioning the official narrative of his death and unless that changes, we shouldn't either. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "confirming" Baghdadi's death, it's about attributing the statement that he committed suicide, killing himself and his family. I have tried to verify your statement by following the wikilinks in the blurb at the top of our front page, but the sources cited in our articles also attribute the suicide to Trump / US officials, as does our article Barisha raid. Please correct our linked wiki articles immediately with "pretty much all the RS sources" [sic] you've referred to, or correct our blurb to match the sources currently used in our article. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I disagree with your position which I believe is contrary to what the RS sources are all plainly saying. And it seems to me you are splitting hairs here. If RS sources start to raise questions we can go there. But only then. Beyond which, if you want to change what is being written in the articles, this is the wrong forum. You need to discuss that on the relevant article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you've gotten it exactly backwards: our articles Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Barisha raid correctly reflect what sources are saying by reporting Baghdadi's death, and attributing the claim of his suicide to Trump. What you've posted to the front of Wikipedia does not reflect what we've written in our articles, nor the sources our articles cite, as shown below. This isn't splitting hairs, this is the different between reporting facts (as newspapers have correctly done) and transforming quotes from US officials into facts (as you have done with our blurb). Sorry I know that things move fast at ITN so it's OK to have made a mistake, but this should be corrected promptly. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The top hits on Google news:


 * The Atlantic like the Abbasids, he is dead—smashed to bits, according to Trump, by a self-detonated suicide vest.


 * NBC News Trump said the ISIS leader "died like a dog, he died like a coward. He was whimpering, screaming, and crying."


 * ABC News The president said al-Baghdadi, "went into a dead-end tunnel, whimpering and crying and screaming all the way," and died when he detonated a suicide vest.


 * Reuters Baghdadi killed himself during the raid by detonating a suicide vest, Trump said in a televised address from the White House.


 * BBC The fugitive leader of the Islamic State (IS) group killed himself during a US military operation in north-west Syria, President Donald Trump has said.


 * The Guardian US president says jihadist leader detonated suicide vest in US raid in north-west Syria.


 * Agence France-Presse As U.S. troops bore down on al-Baghdadi, he fled into a “dead-end” tunnel with three of his children, Trump said, and detonated a suicide vest.


 * Associated Press US media cited multiple government sources as saying Baghdadi may have killed himself with a suicide vest as US special operations forces descended.


 * That so many high quality sources attribute the statement of his suicide in and of itself should cause you to either use attribution, or refrain from stating that Baghdadi killed himself in Wikivoice, and instead state that he is dead after a U.S. raid. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Does any high quality RS express doubt at Trump's statement ? If they used the language "Trump claimed"... then there may be reason to word ours more carefully. None of these sources express any doubt. --M asem (t) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So literally every RS chooses to attribute the claim of suicide to Trump or US officials, but you think our own news service should go one step further and state the suicide is a fact, unless an RS explicitly contests the claim?
 * Or, are you arguing that there's simply no meaningful difference between attributing the suicide to US officials (RS), and reporting the suicide as a fact (what we've done here)? -Darouet (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Its a distinction without a difference. No news sources have actually seen the remains, nor are they ever going to do so. There's not likely to ever be a certified death certificate or video or something, so attributing it to the US government when no sources have disputed any part of it is essentially a definitive statement. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * interesting, I wonder why reliable sources see a difference between attribution and fact. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's down to their style guides. Newspapers tend to refrain from making definitive factual statements without having the paperwork. Hence when discussing a crime, they will always write allegedly or according to..., even if the perpetrator has confessed and there's zero doubt, until the jury verdict has been published. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia works a little differently. Attributing the statement to the US government wouldn't be incorrect for us, but I don't think it is necessary in this case unless there was even a hint of doubt. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and argue that if every reliable news source attributes a claim, Wikipedia's In the News service should do the same. WP:Verifiability is a core and policy of this encyclopedia, but when I seek to verify that what we've written here is true — Baghdadi killed himself and his own children — instead I am directed to reliable sources that we cite, telling me not that he killed himself, and instead that Donald Trump and U.S. officials have stated as much.
 * What that means in plain English is that verification of the first item in our ITN service has failed.
 * We easily can and should do better than this. The rule of thumb, when there is uncertainty, is that we should be cautious, conservative, and report only what is absolutely known. -Darouet (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Our current first item claims 67 people were killed in protests, based on the say-so of a regional Ethiopian police commissioner Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. Wikipedia does have articles indicating police are generally distrusted, Ethiopia is generally corrupt and strangers are generally risky. But no attribution and no worries. Same with the 39 lorry bodies, except some of those chiefs have articles. Those potential lying government administrations don't seem to bother you. This is because this one real person was associated with Trump by most outlets which makes you click here, OR or not. Or is there an alternative explanation? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – All the RS stories I've seen say he killed himself, and most quote DT. If some other scenario were reliably reported, we could look at it, but unless/until that happens we'll stick with what we've got. (This should not be interpreted as any endorsement of DT.) – Sca (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * in that case you haven't read one of the five sources cited at the top of this post (Fox, AP, BBC, AFP, Guardian), nor have you read any of the additional five sources I posted above. Not a single one of them "says" (or prints) that Baghdadi killed himself. Instead they report that according to Trump or US officials, he killed himself. Can you please give links to the RS you're referring to and quote them directly, as I have done above. -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here are the sources I quoted above by the way: . -Darouet (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case? Polemics. (PS: This user never reads Fox 'News.') – Sca (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As in, you haven't produced even one of All the RS stories [you]'ve seen that reports Baghdadi killed himself, without attributing the statement to Trump or US officials. -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't be opposed to a change to Alt 4 given the concerns Darouet mentions. That said, I suspect that the US narrative is likely to become the widely accepted such that most future reports will simply treat it as factual but it will still only be based on reports from US officials. Unless people fail to talk Trump out of releasing a video I guess. I would also note that while alt 4 may reduce concerns, ultimately even confirmation of his death is based solely on US officials although some variant of this is true for a lot of things we post. Nil Einne (talk)
 * Also I'd be careful when evaluating sources. Anything before Trump's press conference is IMO irrelevant in deciding how the media are treating this. There were a lot of early reports of his death via a suicide vest but AFAIK these were from unnamed US officials speaking "off the record" as it were. The media tend to understandably treat such reports with caution. It's only when officials confirm on the record that the media tend to treat it as more definite, which started with the press conference. Nil Einne (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be careful here. AFAIK there is not a single RS source that has questioned the US Government's account of what happened. Adopting the language change suggested above would at least implicitly suggest that the official version could be false. And that, in the absence of RS corroboration is a huge NPOV fail. Whatever our views of Trump, it should not prejudice us to the point where we start looking for things that don't exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We are, right now, being the opposite of careful, by adopting definitive language when all sources attribute the claim of Baghdadi's suicide. If you think that sources are adopting the appropriate tone when they write, "According to Donald Trump and US officials," why do you think we're adopting too skeptical a tone when write exactly the same thing? You can't have it both ways. -Darouet (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian officials told some reporters around when US officials told others. Not a Trump invention, he was just authorized to speak on it. And so the news (generally and correctly) says he "announced" it, not "claimed" it. These anonymous US officials were described as high-ranking Pentagon and Army dudes, not the usual vague sort "familiar with a situation". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First, it would be helpful if you linked and quoted sources, rather than referring to their existence vaguely and leaving it to everyone else to try and verify what you've written. Second, anonymous US officials, and "high-ranking Pentagon and Army dudes," are not reliable sources of fact: they are parties to a conflict, they have an interest in what is said about their own actions, and what they say may or may not be true. They can however be quoted with attribution, and that is what all reputable sources of information (except us in this case) do. -Darouet (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still can't figure out copy/paste on this thing. Reuters and Al Mayadeen carried the Iranian and Syrian officials, the non-Trump Americans are in various already-linked pieces here. I don't see what involved parties who've wanted to kill or capture Baghdadi would gain by making up a suicide, but sure, it's possible for some unknown reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment the current blurb is incredibly politically biased. It is phrased in such a way to make sure no iota of positive can be attribuited to Trump.  Every terrorist attack and mass shooting posted on ITN has been "X people have been killed" without stating and the shooter/terrorist killed himself.  Good job ITN keeping things politically biased. 2601:602:9200:1310:4422:EA17:C2EC:BF6C (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous IP user has posted a total of two edits. – Sca (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Responding to the IP, I made the alt blurb that was posted to be as short, informative, and neutral as possible. A reference to the president is unnecessary. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm really quite surprised at how definitive the ITN statement is here. I just finished reading related articles in a series of papers, and they aren't nearly as black-and-white in their phraseology. I suspect that part of this might be due to the fact that Trump has a long and colorful history of exaggerating, misstating, speaking extemporaneously, and so on; in other words, he's simply not considered a reliable source.  There is a reason why so many outlets are saying "Trump says" rather than "this happened".  I think Wikipedia should share that level of caution here.  Risker (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That reason is most outlets know associating a real person, place or thing with Trump will increase its clickability significantly for a few days. When he normally lies, someone calls him on it within minutes. Even WaPo and ISIS aren't trying, because they heard the same thing from multiple and relatively credible witnesses and governments. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As multiple editors have noted above, there's no way to verify whether the information is true or false. Given that uncertainty, all reliable sources attribute the statement that Baghdadi killed himself. You are asking us, instead, to accept it as fact. Your speculation that attribution is for "clicks" is pure OR. -Darouet (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Masem asks "Does any high quality RS express doubt at Trump's statement?" -- Doubts over Donald Trump's dramatic account of Baghdadi raid. The whole claim from Trump smelled of tripe and that's why no respectable news outlet transformed his claim from "Trump said" to fact. It now seems very likely this "Trump said" will be widely mocked as the nonsense it clearly was. -- Colin°Talk 12:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Audiovisual details are doubted there, none of which are or were in our blurb. In the ABC interview linked in your story, defense secretary Mark Esper vouches for suicide. Just not whimpering and screaming and whatnot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the suicide claim is questionable for all the reasons stated above, but the death appears to be verified, I have changed it to read A reader can look at the article to find precise statements about how the death allegedly occurred. Discussion may continue and if a consensus emerges to use more specific wording, it can be updated again. Jehochman Talk 12:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that per Reuters Turkey now says it "coordinated" with U.S. in Baghdadi operation. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Ivan Milat

 * Oppose That's a redirect to a section in an article about the murders he committed. He doesn't have his own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not at all sure why he doesn't have his own article, or why the article is called "Backpacker Murders". It's the result of a merger in 2008, after discussion on the talk page between 4 editors, all of whom seemed to have lived in the US. I guess that's maybe an indication of how the case was known there, but I think that in Australia, his name is better known than the term "Backpacker murders". The Guardian obit is titled "Ivan Milat, Australia's most notorious serial killer, dies aged 74" . It also has another article "Ivan Milat's chilling serial backpacker murders still haunt Australia" . The ABC has "Australian serial killer Ivan Milat dies in Long Bay prison, aged 74" and "Secrets of the forest: Ivan Milat, Australia’s most notorious serial killer, is dead. How many more murders remain unsolved?" . 39 of the 83 (ish) sources have the name Milat in the title. But I don't want to spend time on the article myself. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * RebeccaGreen, I think the subject being the most notorious Astralian murderer deserves his own bio. (assuming there is enough material to write there). This should have been on ITN RD. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Over half of the current article is about him, his trial and imprisonment, interviews about other disappearances, etc. There's plenty for an article about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per Muboshgu. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is big news. Article had 35,000 page views on 26 October. The article is in fairly good shape. It is common to merge articles on major criminals with the article on their crimes per WP:CRIME: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic [sic] material relating to that person. Since his name is a redirect to that article, he qualifies for RD.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the Ian Brady precedent. P-K3 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) When I voted it wasn't a standalone article; now Oppose on quality.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Temporary oppose – Until it snows at the AfD. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. A whole-article CE is needed for this hastily-created BLP. I got tripped up on whether Milat married a pregnant man, and whether he had worked as a construction worker for 20 years by the time he was 17, and whether a vegetable (onion, specifically) identified Milat for one of his crimes. This is a very bad article, and I hope that some of the above strike their !votes until it is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the article makes no sense. The "Arrest and trial" section begins with police surveilling his house because of some crimes that are never mentioned at all - who are Clarke and Walters?  Onions? The Belanglo murders?  You've effectively got an article here about a notorious serial killer than doesn't explain his crimes at all. Needs a lot of work. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: if the BLP hadn't existed, I would have supported per the Ian Brady precedent, because the murder article is perfectly good. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree, it's a pity in a way that someone has unmerged the biography from the crime, as given the Ian Brady precedent, an RD posting could have linked to Backpacker murders. Now we have a mess :-( RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what comes from the insistence of some that we mustn't glorify criminals. It also hides a lot of the nasty stuff they did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality issues Taewangkorea (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Robert Evans

 * Oppose per nom.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: V. Nanammal

 * Support article is in good enough shape for the main page, has been updated, no maintenance tags. Marking as ready given lack of objections --DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs substantial copyediting (e.g. "She learned yoga from her father, who was a martial artist, Nanammal's husband was a Siddha practitioner in the village and was also into agriculture.", among other issues) and reorganization (for example, there is a lot of information about the subject's family under "Yoga Practice" when that information does not relate to Yoga: "During those days, the primary business was agriculture in Kerala state, where their family owned coconut and cashew farms, along with traditional Siddha medicine.)  Spencer T• C 02:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed User:Spencer thanks for the constructive feedback, I have copy edited the article following your suggestions. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * her death needs to be mentioned in prose in the body of the article. Change "Later activity" to "Later life and death". --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support minor copyedit may required. -Nizil (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mild support needs a copyedit, and could be expanded a bit more. Otherwise it is well-sourced.   Kees08  (Talk)   06:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I came to post, but her death is still not mentioned outside the infobox. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed User:Coffeeandcrumbs I have changed the section header per your suggestion and expanded. Also added info about her death. MSGJ please see if this can now be posted. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Valentine

 * Weak oppose has a citation needed tag --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed DannyS712, missing citation added.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support short article, but sourced. Written well enough from a prose perspective  Kees08  (Talk)   06:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dilip Parikh

 * Support - article is adequate for RD. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose: Political career is mostly a list of election results and positions held; any information available regarding what Parikh did in his role as a politician (new laws, political positions, projects, etc.)?  Spencer T• C 00:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * His short stint as Chief Minister was not much eventful because he was running a minority government. I could not find anything significant in references to add. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good enough for recent deaths section. Marking as ready given only 1 weak oppose (that was responded to) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Northeast Brazil oil spill

 * Comment: Recommend this nomination be as a regular item; Chronus, can you suggest a blurb for this? Best,  Spencer T• C 04:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Chronus (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you give your opinion? Chronus (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and added alt 2 and 3. Article could use some improvement, but good enough for ITN. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  the article is light on specifics -- it's largely general information about the impact of any oil spill. Except for "confidentially" blaming Venezuela, there are only very general details like "30 tankers from ten different countries" and "As of October 23, contamination had reached more than 200 localities". The article leaves me, as a reader, asking "How much oil? Where? What damage? What's being done to clean it up?" The article lacks all of those crucial specifics. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The oil was produced in Venezuela, that is a fact, but nobody knows how much oil (it just keeps coming) because nobody knows when or where or who caused the spill. It's a very mysterious spill. But it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) environmental disaster in Brazilian recent history.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * After the Amazon fires? But yeah, if they're certain it's from Venezuela, the only way to measure it is to ask Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a disaster that is still in progress . There is still no concrete information about the origin of the oil, nor about its quantity, much less about the environmental and human impacts, which take longer time to measure. Understand that the entire coast of the Brazilian Northeast has been reached, so there is not a single place to be mentioned in the text. What's being done to clean it up? Please read the fourth paragraph of the introductory text and you will have your answer. Chronus (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazon fires occur every year, but only received wide media coverage in 2019. About your question about Venezuela, see this and this. Chronus (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply Article is getting better, needs a copyedit. Everything is in the lead, the impact section is mostly fluff. Still missing crucial details on observed impact so far.--LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll try I've sectioned it off and written a standard lead. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support pretty well fleshed out at this point. Still needs a copyedit for grammar like "from the nine states of the Northeast Brazil". Needs a better blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sturm (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Improve the tone by changing "a mysterious oil spill" to "an oil spill of unknown origin". --LukeSurlt c 11:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅! Chronus (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I left off "entire" from the blurb because otherwise I am sure that someone will be at ERRORS saying that some little beach didn't get any oil. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Another note: I've just realised that the use of "hit" in "Northeast Brazil is hit by an oil spill" is probably too informal for Wikipedia. What verb would be better? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "hit" --> "affected"?  Spencer T• C 17:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spill is still a ongoing event. Sturm (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See more recent nom (now closed) to make it ongoing. Basically, while there's still cleanup of it going on, its not a significant news event any more. --M asem (t) 04:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Uluru climbing ban

 * Oppose on quality alone. The item has been global news for a day or so, but the article really needs substantial work.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. As far as I can tell, there's only actually a line on the actual climbing ban? PotentPotables (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on quality and importance. Governments issue bans everyday. – Ammarpad (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Of interest to a specialized audience. Sca (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. This is not any old ban, but has received much publicity worldwide, probably at least partly because many readers are likely to see it as implicitly significant in many different areas, such as 'God/Religion v Mammon', colonizers v colonized, alleged 'science/rationality' v alleged 'superstition', tourist rights v native rights, ancient v modern, conservation v jobs, politically correct v politically incorrect, and so on, and is quite likely to have knock-on effects elsewhere in the world as a result, even if these arguments are not necessarily spelled out explicitly in Reliable Sources and in our article (and perhaps rightly so, to avoid becoming UNDUE, etc). As for article quality, I don't normally regard myself as qualified to judge whether our quality standards are being met, but a superficial look at the article suggests, at least to me, that there is an orange flag that would need fixing, but assuming that gets fixed, I think the article currently seemingly gives a brief but reasonable and arguably adequate summary of the history of the disputes over native ownership and climbing rights, thus providing our readers with the background to this story, which at least arguably fulfils the first stated purpose of ITN articles ("To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."). But as already mentioned, I am not the best person to judge such quality issues. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't necessarily have a position on whether this should be included for ITNR, though it is very significant for indigenous rights. My comment is that if this is to be posted that it should mention it was to honor the wishes of the indigenous Aṉangu People who hold Uluru to be sacred because otherwise such a climbing ban may seem to be without cause. It gives more context and is educational. This can be added without violating NPOV, I believe. As Wikipedia is a global audience and I am from the US, many don't know the indigenous context of Uluru (I think). So I am open to including this but preferably with some mention of being motivated by indigenous wishes. -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried new blurb. --Jenda H. (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added altblurb 2, as I feel Australia needs to be mentioned for the benefit of the many readers who have no idea where Uluru is. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb 2 in principle but the article's issues have still not been sorted out. Davey2116 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Maria Butina

 * Oppose not updated and really not that noteworthy. She was sentenced to a crime, served her time and is now being released and deported.  I'm not sure why this is of interest.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM, and from waves of possible NPOV violation later in the article. The intention and phrasing of this nom ('Russian citizen convicted of crimes in US') also seems to be trying to imply that convicting her was wrong, more POV (the article is not that bad, and is otherwise well-written). Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM as well, even then I don't think this is something significant enough to be covered in ITN. GreatZerosReef (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The conviction/sentencing was the ITN story, not her release. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Bolivian general election results

 * Support ITNR election nomination with a succinct article, with prose for all suitable sections. Also incorporates the Bolivian protests (which for some reason have not yet been posted). Accessible.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also added a shortened altblurb130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Ugh, should we really post this? I mean, this was clearly a fake election. We dont post election news in North Korea or China or Russia and being mentiioned on the main page of the 4th post popular website in the world would give this dictator more legitimacy when we should --5.44.170.9 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is firmly in favor of posting the results of sham elections. We do have a history of contextualizing with "reactions," which we don't do for legit elections.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support/Comment what if we combine this nom with the Bolivian Protests nom and make both the election and protests the target articles? I added alt2 to reflect this. Make sense, or too much in one nom? ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There's also the potential to include that his party lost their majority in the chamber; that would then definitely be too many things in one blurb. Kingsif (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt2. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the results table appears to be incomplete. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * which part? looks complete to me. Percentage points are only given for valid votes, if that's it. Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The distribution of seats? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I just hit refresh, yeah. The other tabs of the vote results source gave the seat count, but these now appear blank. So... that's a problem. Separately, I might adjust the percentages to include invalid ballots. Kingsif (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be good now, found a Bolivian newspaper that reported on the TREP results on 21 Oct. - Chamber results complete, Senate reported at 83% counted. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 3. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted combined with protests nom below.  Spencer T• C 04:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Quantum supremacy

 * Nice suggestion, but which article are we pointing to (with a bold wikilink) and has that article been sufficiently updated and is it of sufficient quality? I will look and form my own opinion, and others will hopefully weigh in.  I am a little concerned that Google's claim may be hyped up.  One commentator said that a more efficient standard platform could solve the problem in three days.  Three days to three minutes is still a big improvement, but if so, the claim needs to be adjusted so that it's not puffery.  Jehochman Talk 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as premature. The article quantum supremacy looks good but from it I learned that Google's claim is not yet accepted science, and doesn't meet the requirements of quantum supremacy.  See IBM's cricism. Jehochman Talk 19:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the skepticism that is evident in the article, and per Jehochman. Perhaps we wait for wider confirmation ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Snowpose per Jehochman. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose claiming that it's not accepted science is unfair because a peer-reviewed article has already been published . However, there seems to be scant coverage in the mainstream media. It's in the science sections, but not the actual headlines. Weak oppose for now, can switch to support if there's more coverage. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is just a claim that requires verification through practical application. Normally, it is not notable for inclusion per se unless it yields solutions to yet unsolved problems due to the quantum barrier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every current claim of quantum supremacy is marketing fluff. In general, there's no one moment that would definitively mark quantum supremacy, but currently all Google, IBM etc claims revolve around very narrow problems carefully chosen to be as hard as possible for classical computers and as easy as possible for quantum ones, with no real world applications. Smurrayinchester 08:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Meh. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yet another trivia. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jehochman. GreatZerosReef (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) WPV3 eradicated

 * Support A couple cn's in the 2000-2005 history section but nothing that should be hard to fix. Otherwise updated and looks good, and a significant event. --M asem (t) 17:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the article itself isn't bad, there are only a couple sentences on the 2019 eradication (the "event"), and more or less they simply say "WP3 was declared eradicated in October 2019". There really hasn't been a major update in the article reflecting the eradication ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No, 'cause it's only one of many strains. I expect Overwhelming support for the nom once all strains are eradicated and the disease seizes to exist --5.44.170.9 (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say one of many strains. Only WPV1 remains now, and there were only three strains to begin with. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are also further vaccine-caused strains, at least as far as i understand. --5.44.170.9 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support based on the source, 2/3 of the way there which is a significant milestone. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose notability/impact. PV3 is a terribly niche virus and has been a non-issue, from an epidemiological standpoint, even decades ago. The pre-fixing of "W" onto the beginning of viral names is a tactic that borders on marketing. Essentially, they're taking credit for "eradicating" a genetically narrowly-defined virus to get press and funding. PV3 cases are still going to occur, just not this WPV3 strain. Contra the above, there are hundreds of PV strains, they are just categorized as -1, -2, and -3 ('type strains') for historical reasons. Heck, PV1 is still around even while having one of the most efficacious vaccines available for decades.130.233.2.235 (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course we should reconsider when polio is eradicated full stop. Until then, this is just another incremental step towards a real news story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a step in the right direction but this isn't the full eradication, and it nowhere near reaches the smallpox level of news. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Arcane and obscure. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If/when polio is eradicated then it would be appropriate to post. One particular strain of the virus is only an incremental step towards that goal. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and Modest Genius.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per TRM. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Xie Gaohua

 * Support Article clearly explains the subject's role as a politician, and is complete and well-referenced. Marking "ready".  Spencer T• C 04:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   06:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James W. Montgomery

 * Support - Article looks just good enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support not a hugely comprehensive article, but what's there is adequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks OK for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Bolivian protests

 * Comment: Suggest blurb nomination; could you provide a possible blurb for the protests?  Spencer T• C 00:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed nom from ongoing to blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is in good shape. Event is very signficant.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Two CN's need addressing before posting, but they should not be too difficult. Otherwise, would support. Very interesting that this country had a popular referendum overturned by a supranational convention almost two years ago, and now they're suffering political instability and protests. This is becoming a trend!130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no comment on the dictatorship vs. success rates of pseudo-socialist economic malpractice regimes in South America (all joking - and thanks for tag fixes) Kingsif (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, Support130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per above, but as we haven't posted anything about the election, perhaps the blurb could go into more detail about it. Davey2116 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that would be hard to do, concisely and objectively. The immediate and stated cause of this is electoral irregularities of the most recent election (which is hard to take seriously, seeing that pre-election and exit polling are all in general agreement with the official results). More likely, the near-half of the country that voted for someone other than the winner, are upset that the winner is now taking on a fourth consecutive term in a country whose constitution explicitly bans any more than two consecutive terms, but this is still allowed because someone 50 years ago signed a treaty. The article gets this point across in, I think, an even-handed way, but I can't come up with a blurb that does as well. Best to just point to the article and let readers find out for themselves.130.233.2.47 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As said, but in short format, it's going to be hard to give a blurb about an election when it might not be over? Harder to make it objective. Kingsif (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - major unrest. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted combined with election nomination above.  Spencer T• C 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Grays incident

 * Support - I do not know it this gets attention world wide because it happens in England. But it is for sure all over the world media and the article seems ready for posting. sourced and good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Mass killing, apparently of illegal immigrants, by an international organised crime group. Of significant historical notability to the world, not just Europe. Similar to the 2000 Dover incident. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - worldwide notability indeed, and well built article. Sad we have to post it ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per above supports. Seems well-sourced at first read. I notice a discussion on the Talk page regarding proposed alternate article titles. Jusdafax (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait – It's widely published all right, but something about it makes me nervous. For one thing, the Guardian and the BBC say the driver/suspect is named Mo Robinson, but both are quite dodgy about it. Guardian: "believed to be Mo Robinson," BBC: "named locally as Mo Robinson." Neither statement is in the nominated article; if this were an official identification it would be there. Instead, we say he was a 25-year-old from such-and-such. I don't like it. Further, we know nothing about the victims or where they were from. Also, the 'Reactions' section conveys no real information. Suggest we wait for more details. – Sca (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Name not included per BLP concerns. There is so little information on suspects that connecting only one man, who may just be an unlucky driver, to 39 murders, obviously not happening. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Sources re China: AP, Guardian, BBC. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Commenet For info, there's a discusion on the talkpage regarding the current page title. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Japan Series

 * Support - This is what an article on a recurring event should look like. Includes prose, pictures, and appropriate updates.--WaltCip (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WaltCip.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support almost as good as some of those bloody Boat Race articles... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , damn those races and their high quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree the article is good. Some prose on the reaction or aftermath would be nice, but it's fine to post as it is. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone else. A refreshing ITN/R article! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Let the boat race klaxons sound in support of the winners! Well sourced, plenty of prose between the tables, and a couple pictures. Rockphed (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 16:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) WeWork CEO Severance

 * Oppose really nice piece of trivia well suited to other parts of the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not rise to the level of importance needed for ITN material despite all the hype. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose not ITN-worthy. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: are severance packages a priori not suitable for ITN? This is beating the previous record by a factor of more than 3, 18 years after it was set. I feel that had this been a new marathon record, it would have had an easier time here.130.233.2.235 (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hardly definitive, but I haven't seen this reported anywhere until I read it here. ITN is not for publicizing great wrongs. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zeng Rongsheng

 * Posted Stephen 03:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolando Panerai

 * Support - Good job sourcing everything! -Zanhe (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans Zender

 * Comment Article looks good, but spot check of refs has some problems. I'm having trouble getting ref. 7 from archive and the original is apparently gone.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's ref. 8, Rheingau music fest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, replaced by a concert review from one of the concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) ... and found one for the other as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, then.130.233.2.47 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris (sheep)

 * Well if you won't, you won't. I've added conversion templates, I don't know what '30 jumpers' converts to in sweaters, and nor does the template, so I think you'll have to live with that. Spokoyni (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ok. P-K3 23:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, well referenced. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marieke Vervoort

 * Weak oppose what's there is mostly okay, but it's hard to believe this is all we have to say about her. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is on the brink of being a stub. Many parts of it are vague or brief (eg. "Marieke Vervoort was a Belgian Paralympic athlete and Paralympic champion who suffered from an incurable muscle disease." What disease? That's the whole summary) but if extra work can be done on this article I'd support it, especially because of the way she died. Rockin 12:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now, thanks ! Rockin 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - just barely, but it seems sufficient for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rockin. The article is basically a stub and is lacking in details. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The article is still short but is much more satisfactory on information now. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'll try to update and add to it - there are several good obituaries to use as sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others, sadly it's basically a stub ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Great work in little time! Thanks ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have started adding to the article, from obituaries and from articles in the Dutch, French and German Wikipedias, which all have more information about her and the early part of her career. None, I think, name the disease, so it should not be a problem that the English Wikipedia article doesn't name it either. I will continue working on this tomorrow, including finding and adding more sources for the information. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment please have a look now. Does it need more work? I realise that there is no medal record in the info box. (I have added a medal record in the info box.) There is more info available in the other Wikipedia articles still, which I will check again in case there are more essential events and achievements, but this now has a summary of her major sporting achievements from 2012-2016, as well as more details of her illness, honours, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Much better, could still use some expansion but is good enough for RD now. I've changed my vote. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, sad tale.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the article looks to be in sufficiently good shape now. Nsk92 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Leppard

 * Oppose about half is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't update, no? But I did now, please look again. His school is not referenced, nor his concertmaster of 14 years . I like such details, even if I can't find a ref. Drop them when they break the rules ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficiently referenced now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Following the addition of more references ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Emperor Naruhito enthroned

 * Support on significance, but oppose due to quality at time - the emperor's article is okay, but the transition article is rather full of overdetailed timelines and Japanese that the majority of English-language readers can't understand. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  03:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – both articles are in violation of BLP with scores of uncited claims about living people. The entire Foreign Dignitaries section, for example, and also see tags placed on Naruhito. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality only. There are some referencing gaps but I think most of them should be easily fixable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Naruhito's article is a BLP disaster zone, the transition article is full of unreferenced and non-updated claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We already posted the abdication & succession in May. No need for the formal ceremony as well. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the formal coronation/inauguration, which we don't usually do except in unusual circumstances. As noted, he's already the emperor, this is just the formality. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Ceremonial formality, etc. – Sca (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No, on all counts. STSC (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Has already been posted in the past.BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland direct rule

 * Weak oppose certainly newsworthy but all three target articles suffering in their own ways from lack of quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whilst this is good news, we've stopped posting the legalisation of same-sex marriage in even large & populous sovereign countries. NI is a small non-sovereign region with 3% of the UK population. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The blurb is unenlightening, and visiting the bold link did nothing to clarify the issue. What's going on here? An Act has been proposed, and did not pass, and this leads to new laws being made re: LBGT and abortion? And according to the article this has something to do with Brexit and a renewable energy scandal? The lede states that this places the burden of legalizing these things onto the British (London) government in 2020; where and how does this new government/laws come into effect, then? If this is a routine change in government, I would support it on ITNR. If this is about legalizing sex and abortion, I would need more information before !voting. If this is about Brexit and/or some other scandal, the update should go to those respective articles and re-nominated. In any case, some clarification is needed before posting.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - both article and blurb issues that needs to be completed before posting. Not opposing posting when completed, ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but we have long since passed the point where we need to be posting each legalization of SSM. If Russia or Saudi Arabia legalize it drop me a line. Otherwise, this is just more of the same. At some point we need to stop posting these events, and IMHO that point was a couple of years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with the opposes above on same sex marriage but am I the only one who finds the abortion part surprising enough to post, considering that GB legalised abortion half a century ago. I can't help but think that Northern Ireland just now legalising abortion is notable enough to deserve some thought. WP:LOGGEDOUT. 69.140.120.9 (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I agree, the abortion aspect is by far more significant than the same-sex marriage issue which appears to have fixated most commentators here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the abortion part affects more people, but my opinion is the same: this law affects a non-sovereign region with a population of less than two million. We would not post the legalisation of abortion in just, say, Multan. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem. Legalization of SSM among countries around the world is steadily increasing. The abortion part is also rather unnoteworthy here on similar merit. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability; an interesting, newsworthy story which is being covered here in the U.S. as well. However, the issues with the articles still have not been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bengt Feldreich

 * Support Short but well-sourced. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas D'Alesandro III

 * Support article is all sourced, looks ready to go PotentPotables (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Looks well sourced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Brother of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Cooper

 * Support, looks short but decent. Do we know anything about his early life? Just curious.Please add a source here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted (though details about early life would be nice)  Kees08  (Talk)   15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support Article looks good enough, but I am concerned about how quickly this was posted with little chance of reaching a true consensus. One support is not enough, even for a RD ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , precedent has established that an experienced nominator and an experienced admin together constitute consensus for recent death nomination. An RD nom doesn't even need a single support. If an admin is confident the article quality is good enough, they can post. I haven't seen an RD being pulled from ITN for at least the past year and half. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * mike gigs does have a valid point; this article is definitely on the brief side and I welcome Kees08 to joining ITN as the most recently promoted admin (and thus "experienced admin" may be pushing it, no offense intended), but unless the article is of more solid quality, I do prefer to wait for more improvement/expansion (and I would have preferred to wait longer for this particular nomination). Just my 2 cents.  Spencer T• C 03:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can pull it if you like, will not bother me at all. Though including the nominator and myself, there are four supports. I took a look for more sources and did not see anything interesting to add, though that does not mean it doesn't exist!  Kees08  (Talk)   07:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did anything wrong - quick turnarounds on RDs are to be encouraged, not discouraged.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(Ready) 2019 Canadian federal election

 * Support but I'm not sure the pre-emptive nomination was necessary. You're right - it's on ITN/R, and so there's no question this will be posted.  However, we must avoid posting in haste - we will only put a blurb up when it is clear whether it's a majority/minority parliament, and who has won the majority or won the most seats.  As you say, if it's really close, that may take some time to work out.  We will only post when we are 100% sure. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unable to vote until we have a completed article with properly cited final prose synopses of the completed election. Unless and until we have that, we cannot assess quality.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just domestic politics. STSC (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just wait and see, for now. STSC (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. If you disagree with general elections being on the list, you are free to propose its removal on the ITNR talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Too soon. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 13:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By the time this is posted the election will be decided so I don’t see that as an issue.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Important international event.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when the results are added to the article. The networks have called a minority government for Trudeau. Davey2116 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but the Liberal Party isn't "them". (The) Liberals are. The party lost its majority, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merci. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support upon condition - Prose required in results section. Otherwise article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we have a prose summary of results. We have held up many other elections for that reason. We need to be consistent. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the results are basically tallied and final. For the same reason, a couple of people who opposed above would presumably withdraw that opposition now. Alsadius (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Although there are a few seats still to resolve, the outcome is clear (Liberals largest party but without a majority). The article looks fine to me, admittedly on only a quick look. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Results give Trudeau two more years. (Four sources added above.) – Sca (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Minority governments tend to last about that long, but not as a rule, and the leaders can stick around for another shot at a majority afterward. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs, we still need some prose on the results.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is extremely wordy, and in my opinion gets far too granular. Except, for the one section that actually matters: Results. I'm not certain that intraparty events going back to 2015 are really necessary, nor is a whole paragraph about one institution's "promises kept" publication. But at the very least, flesh out Results.130.233.2.47 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Reading through the article, you'd think that the election hasn't finished yet, even though it has. Agreed with above that results prose is needed.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. The background is well developed, but the results section, which is the only current event worth posting, has not yet been updated with an adequate amount of well-referenced prose.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WaltCip and the IP above him. This article seems to be more about the results of the 2015 election than the current election. Rockphed (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am striking my oppose because the results have been added. I still think it is way too wordy about everything except the results.  If I had any idea how to fix it, I would just do it.  Call me neutral I suppose. Rockphed (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose TBDs?! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has now been updated so no more TBDs but I would like to see some prose in the results section before supporting.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try again, with dead-neutral prose, but the odds are good that I will be reverted again. This was a very polarized (issues and regional) election, with no end to that in sight. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Results prose completed -- what do you think? I really hope this will suffice for posting. I know editing / article division is very necessary in the rest of the article, but I am hesitant to tackle it just now, since I really don't think I will get very far with any substantial changes until emotions calm down. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * awaiting any comments on the update to the article, please &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – But this should be one of the last items on ITN. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. It could not bump off a more recent item. The only way would be to add it as a fifth blurb, but the right hand side of the main page is already looking long on my display, so it doesn't look like this will be possible &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Tosches

 * Oppose per nom, spot on. The majority of the article is just fine, but the 'ography sections need work.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Working on the 'ography sections. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – "I've gone more than 40 years without having to use an alarm clock or go to an office. At this point, I don't think I'd be capable of it. I don't think I could deprive myself of that sky. It would be like putting an animal in a cage." --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice work C&C! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I seem to recall that bibliography, discography, and film and television appearances do not require inline citations. Wanted to verify that is accurate before I posted it.  Kees08  (Talk)   15:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * we require some form of referencing (ISBN/OCLC or citation) on all claims on BLPs. I realized I missed a few things before. Everything should be good to post now. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, glad I waited to post it :). Good work on the updates!  Kees08  (Talk)   01:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Erhard Eppler

 * Weak oppose looks like it's 88% of the way there but still too much unreferenced for a BLP. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please look again. I dropped a few details, such as exactly which election district sent him when, because I think they are of little relevance in the long run, and I'm tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing improved; covers political career beyond just listing positions.  Spencer T• C 02:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - everything is referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   06:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Parliamentary votes on Brexit | Letwin amendment

 * A lot of things are going to happen quickly in the next few days. I can certainly understand a blurb but I wonder if this is the right point at which to do it(for example, Johnson's deal may yet still pass) or if so much is going to happen that it should remain where it is. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose UK actually leave the EU, UK revoke Article 50 okay blurb. All other steps along the way, keep it Ongoing. -- KTC (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral. An historic moment certainly, and a surprise. Perhaps the most startling aspect being Johnson's apparent insistence that he is prepared to defy the Benn Act and break the law. But tend to agree with 331dot. The next vote, a re-run of the intended "meaningful vote" of today, is now tabled for as soon as Monday. Although the numbers look like they will be very similar to today's. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness. It seems that Johnson has now sent the required letter to Donald Tusk, but has refused to sign it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , never trust a son of a toilet, especially two of them. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  22:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bercow has left open the possibility he will not allow another vote. It's going to be an interesting next few days. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support but maintain it in ongoing, as well. This is certainly making international headlines. However, if we're making this a blurb, then the Letwin amendment section of the article needs to be fleshed out a lot. If the story changes drastically soon, then we can always edit the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support conditional on removal from ongoing like we ought to have done a month ago. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is what ongoing is for. Although a significant skirmish in the never ending political bickering between those who want out and those who are desperately (and somewhat successfully) trying to scupper Brexit, ultimately it is a not a major shift in the status quo. The next blurb on this should be either the UK leaves the EU or they revoke Article 50. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been "Ongoing" for more than 2 years -- is it your proposal to leave Brexit in the ITN box until the ultimate conclusion? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as long as it continues to receive sufficient news coverage to justify it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Totally agree with Ad Orientem, it's blurb or ongoing, not both. This is just one more incremental step in the process. Enough with nominating every single step. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My proposal is to remove the ongoing. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that would be far superior to having an ongoing and a blurb, but this delay doesn't end Brexit, so its still ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The focus has already moved on to the sending of the letters. Next up is the parliamentary manouevring to get the latest deal back into the schedule alongside the Queen's Speech.  It's too fast-moving and indecisive for a blurb. Andrew D. (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It ain't over yet. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Andrew. Lots going on, will likely be hard to nail down a specific blurb for a few days so let's wait in Ongoing until there's something clearer to post. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Brexit is (correctly) already in ongoing, and we can't post a blurb every time Boris Johnson loses a vote (that's roughly one a week at the moment). Whilst there is an awful lot going on in Brexit, the situation is moving quickly and Letwin's amendment is just one more twist in the tale. I would be more supportive of a blurb about the large protest march that was going on simultaneously, which appears to have been the second-largest protest in British history. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose we're not far away from some news which may be digestible by our readers rather than this somewhat esoteric move which, while important, will soon be actioned with results. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing: replace "Brexit" with "Brexit negotiations in 2019"

 * Sounds reasonable, fixing. --Tone 10:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The negotiations finished Thursday, so not sure that target is appropriate anymore. Currently, it is up to the House of Commons, so perhaps Parliamentary votes on Brexit, though it is not really updated. Still thinks the main Brexit article is the best target. Also, can you please elaborate on why the Brexit articles is horrible uninformative. I find it very informative, but a bit difficult to navigate. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree, Hebsen. But I think Parliamentary votes on Brexit might be a better target once updated. May be less of a wait than anticipated, as voting on Oliver Letwin's delaying amendment is currently underway. First House of Commons Saturday sitting for 37 years. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I have on several occasions visited Brexit to find out what is going on and came out uninformed. I agree, however, that Parliamentary votes on Brexit may in time make a good substitute if updated. My personal criteria for an ongoing link is where can the reader easily find the most up to date information. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:ERRORS was solely created to deal with issues like this. Please let's direct further "fix this" issues there. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try that next time this ever comes up but I think I would have been referred back to here. I would think replacing an article should be vetted and discussed here. This was not an error or a minor update. This was a proposal to delist and replace in FPC parlance. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Brexit means Brexit". The focus of the affair keeps shifting between the diplomatic negotiations; the various parliaments and personalities; the street protests; the courts; &c.  Trying to identify the news focus with blurbs or the suggested sub-article is misleading as the story soon moves on.  The timeline section in the main Brexit article might be a good place to start but we shouldn't assume that the reader already knows what Brexit means and so it's best to start at the top.  Andrew D. (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the link back to Brexit per comments above &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes, it does make sense. STSC (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and I'm invoking my super special and meaningful "strongest possible" enhancement for this !vote. The Brexit article is too long to serve the intended purpose of providing information on what's in the news.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Deborah Orr

 * Looks good, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Santiago protests

 * Support alt1 Appears to be significant, well covered in the media, and article is well sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - updated and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, on notability. In addition to what others have said above: Chile's President has declared a state of emergency, and military troops have been deployed to contain civilian unrest for the first time since the fall of Pinochet in 1987. Nsk92 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability and quality of the article. Lots of protests lately! ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's getting bigger now. STSC (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I came to post, but I'm wondering about . Do we need to know that it brought the whole system to a standstill, and is "bring" the right verb to use with a declaration. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From the news today, the protests have gone beyond the metro; the instigation was the metro fare hike. There's at least 5 deaths and 70 "incidents" of violence, so I made an altblurb to capture that. --M asem (t) 13:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Masem. I have the altblurb, and added Piñera to the image protection list. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. Major protests in a location which hasn't seen this sort of violence for decades. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kamlesh Tiwari

 * Oppose There are significant gaps in basic information. Dates are missing. The article reports criminal cases lodged four years ago w/o explaining their outcome. It doesn't even explicitly identify the subjects nationality although that can be guessed from the body. The subject is clearly notable but the article is going to need serious expansion before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly revise your vote. I have updated the article. -- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 06:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is now an orange POV tag at the top. That's a showstopper until whatever issues it refers to are corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s no more. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 08:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's nothing in the article about his life up until 2012. Indeed, apart from one sentence there's nothing about him apart from his comment about Muhammad and his death. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the above !votes. However, you might make an article Assassination of Kamlesh Tiwari and re-nominate that, using the information already in the BLP. There's enough sourcing to show notability and religiously-motivated political assassinations are newsworthy.130.233.2.47 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No way: we don't need two different articles on this person &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking better now. I don't understand the following sentence: . Perhaps it needs proof-reading, but it's getting there. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Wreck of the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga found

 * Support Everybody loves shipwrecks.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Contrary to Hawkeye's opinion, not everyone loves shipwrecks. Some of us are quite indifferent to them. A ship that was sunk during WWII is brought back up... so what? It's not significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Worth pointing out that the general location of the ship has been known since 1999...--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Conceding an element of trivia, it's in a popular genre. Also the article being FA is always a plus. That said the blurb is a bit wordy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support May not be as notable as the likes of Titanic or Bismarck, but this wasn't an ordinary ship either. The article itself is also in very good shape. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The remains of Kaga lie more than 3 miles below the surface and won't ever be "brought back up," nor will she be accessible to divers. Discoveries of sunken wrecks have become frequent. RV Petrel has found 31. This one doesn't seem particularly significant. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like, what's going to happen, man? ——  SerialNumber  54129  18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uninteresting trivia at best. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 21:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: – Now the wreck of Akagi has been found in similar circumstances. That makes 32. – Sca (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whilst the FA-class article gave me pause, this doesn't seem to be a particularly notable wreck (unlike Titanic, or Mary Rose). The implications of a more precise location seem extremely limited, and Sca makes a good point that this research vessel is finding several large shipwrecks every year. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support this as an interesting story and an opportunity to showcase one of our best articles. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) First all-female spacewalk

 * Oppose it's a nice piece of trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting indeed but not really ITN-worthy. Could be a cool DYK if the articles are promoted to GA, which they very well could be ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Another milestone.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a good example of something typically found in the DYK section. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 20:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree this would have been a great DYK (especially because of the reason the first planned all-female spacewalk was scrapped) but that doesn't make it not worthy of ITN. --valereee (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivial. "First female X" is often going to be trivial. Sometimes it could be a true breakthrough, but sometimes it's this. What's so significant about two women doing a spacewalk together? This isn't even the first female spacewalk. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Internationally, not trivial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a huge amount of fuss around it based on the failure the first time around because the perceived sexism in not carrying different size suits. Hence the coverage.  But in encyclopedic value terms, this is pure trivia.  Did we post the fist time two men space-walked together?  Will we post the first time two African-Americans spacewalk together?  Doubt it.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In encyclopedic terms it is not trivial (no matter how bolded), its "making history", and it is already included in the encyclopedia. (We are currently carrying a woman who ran fast, because she was a woman who ran fast.) These things non-trivially matter to people around the world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, she did something a woman has never done before. These women just happened to be  in the same  place at the same time, repeating a feat that  women have done for years and years and years.  Yawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is plainly false that they just happened to be in the same place at the same time, and untrue that women walked together in space before. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that women had walked in space together. Do keep up. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So, these women did do something not done by women before. That the history of space walks is some sixty-years-old, only reinforces that this is history making and how the world changes. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, as I said, women have done spacewalks for years. Just because there was a crowd of them this time, it doesn't make it significant other than the hysteria around the space suits issue last time round.  Hyperbolic trivia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All the reliable sources says it's history making and significant that these women did this. Your opinions are entirely unsupported, except by ultra-fringe personal ipsa-dixit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. There's a strong consensus against this trivia for precisely the reasons I've given.  Perhaps everyone else opposing is into this "ultra-fringe theorising" ipsa-dixit quod erat demonstrandum!!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is not hilarious, it is just the case that you are only basing your arguments on your personal opinions, regardless of each reliable source that contradicts your personal opinions -- according to reliable sources, which note facts of the history of space walks including earlier women, these women's space walk has history making significance. And your only response, instead of basing things on the evidence of sources is to say you're personally bored be these women's accomplishments.  So you personally find it not interesting, in the very face of multiple reliable sources being interested in these women's accomplishment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's still hilarious. Feel free to batter all the others who have formed a strong consensus against this trivia being posted.  And it wasn't the spacewalk that was boring I'm afraid Alan.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Battering, how odd, since basically all your personal opinion comments have been down here under my reliably sourced comments, it would be you who would be battering. And what you are battering with, over and over and over, is your continued unsourced personal opinion belittling (see eg,  ) these women's accomplishment in the face of multiple reliable sources that express in detail these women made history. (Also, your attempts to support an argument by claiming others also have personal unsourced opinions is without logic.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand again. I simply pointed to the clear consensus against this trivial story being newsworthy for this encyclopedia.  I think that's really all that needs to be said.  Without the NASA failed suits issue, this would be even less interesting than it currently is, which is already clearly borderline, regardless of your reliable sources.  Cheers, but as suggested by others, more suited for a different part of the main page!  And it's so trivial that it isn't even mentioned in the spacewalk article!!!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You continue to batter with unsourced personal opinion, mutiple reliable sources demonstrate it is newsworthy and not trivial, continuing your extended effort to belittle what these women did. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, quite the opposite, I'm stating the facts, this is trivial. One woman has done a spacewalk.  Plenty of women have done spacewalks.  For 20 years.  Now two have done it at the same time.  It's nothing really to do with belittling the achievements of these two women at all.  They did great.  But it makes precisely zero difference that they were two women or two men or two African-Americans or two Jews or two midgets.  These are fractionally incremental and trivial changes, indeed this one so insignificant that even this encyclopedia's article excludes it.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not stating facts you battering with your unsupported personal opinions belittling these women's accomplishment as mere trivia, because the facts as established by multiple reliable sources include the earlier space walks and say what these women did here is historic. According to reliable sources it does matter to history that these women did this, again contrary to your personal opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, it's minutiae. As evidenced by this encyclopedia and this community.  Now, feel free to have the final word as this is going nowhere; many of us disagree that this is in any sense "historic", by all means "batter" one of them as it won't work on me.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your unsourced personal opinion that reliable sources don't matter is just continuation of your battering -- reliable sources are are actual evidence in contrast to personal opinion. Your unsourced personal opinion on historic, is belied by multiple reliable sources, who all say it is historic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting trivia. More suited for DYK. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support International reliable sources report this rare feat. Trillfendi (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Eileen Collins was breaking the glass ceiling. This is just nice trivia. Wait for the first all female crew. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chasing the headlines only. -- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It is the 221st spacewalk on the ISS alone (I think we are somewhere are 400 spacewalks all time? Had trouble finding the exact number). Important enough of an achievement to be featured in my opinion. If every ~400 spacewalks and 35 years (time between Svetlana's spacewalk and now) we feature an achievement like this, so be it.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support in that this is being made a big deal by the news, and I think is fair to post, though acknowledging that it was "just" another spacewalk otherwise. That said, Meir's article has sourcing issues, a visible CN and the awards need a proper source (the only one goes to the home page of JSC which is not sufficient). --M asem (t) 13:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I took care of those issues and many others, perhaps would be able to spend time citing the last little bits and whatever other work needs done...?   Kees08  (Talk)   06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , of course. Done. --- Coffee  and crumbs  07:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as above, the important glass ceiling regarding spacewalks was broken in the past, leaving this as little but a nice bit of trivia worthy perhaps of DYK. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Huge news for 1/2 population of the world 5.44.170.9 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? Getting them the right to vote was huge news for women. Equal pay would be too. I don't see too many women celebrating in the streets over this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)




 * Oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Meir's article indicates that this was done in the execution of routine maintenance. I don't think even avid female space enthusiasts are going to be interested in changing batteries.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A welcome but trivial development. The first woman to spacewalk was notable, but that was Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984. That no men were outside during this particular routine spacewalk is not something that's going to break any glass ceilings. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per . —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment time to put this one out its misery methinks. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Lebanese protests

 * Agreed, corrected! --Shahen books (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb - Good article but I thought the blurb could be improved in wording a bit so i proposed Alt1 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivial. If these protests rise to something notable, perhaps revisit. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - the most violent protest events in Lebanon in the 21st century.GreyShark (dibra) 11:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * what is your opinion on this item? (I notice you have looked at the article.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * things are heating up and there have been a few government resignations. The article, however, is difficult to read and understand. The article sourcing looks good but needs copy editing for grammar and style. The timeline of events also contributes to making this article hard to understand. For example, there is no context offered for why "Samir Geagea, chief of the Lebanese Forces, calls for Prime Minister Saad Hariri's resignation" and then the next day announces "the resignation of the Ministers of the Lebanese Forces". If we got rid of the list and turned to paragraphs for October 18 and 19, I would support. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed the lists into paragraphs, and they make a lot more sense now a la explaining why people did things/what they said. I'll give the rest of the article a quick read through for style/grammar, but it should be good now. PotentPotables (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 which I added. I used "amid" because it is not exactly clear if the ministers resigned because of protests or in support of the protests. Perhaps it should be "during". I also toned down the puffery and colorful language (i.e. "erupt" and "country-wide"). --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 as Nominator PotentPotables (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 per Coffeeandcrumbs. -Zanhe (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – While domestically significant, these events seem below ITN's usual criteria, and the article is less than lucent. – Sca (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mark Hurd

 * Support I added a sentence about his death in the article as it wasn't mentioned, but other than that it looks good ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Aviartm (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   00:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Military World Games

 * Would like to see some of those sections in the article expanded significantly, but support in principle &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's not in the news. PR Newswire is just a distributor of press-releases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not a significant event. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have added Telegraph and US DoD sources. The time to nominate this is probably the conclusion of the games, when results are in and the article is finalized.130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks but the DoD is not a news organisation and the Telegraph article was published back in July. Compare this with the space walk which is in all MSM. Andrew D. (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait until conclusion of the games. Will assess quality at that point.  Until we have a concluded games and a relatively complete descriptive prose of them, there's nothing to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose time to close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Göran Malmqvist

 * Support - I thought of nominating this but the article quality was too poor. Kudos to for sourcing everything. -Zanhe (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elijah Cummings

 * Oppose blurb, support RD This congressman wasn't very notable on the national scene. That being said, the sourcing is good enough for RD. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD and, although it breaks my heart to type this, Oppose blurb. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Good article and well referenced. Oppose blurb. One of 500+ elected officials, held a few committee chairs, like many of those other 500+ do.130.233.3.131 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article looks good. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. DoctorSpeed  ✉️ ✨  —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support RD and Oppose Blurb per others. If we did a blurb for every congressman, ITN would be nothing but deaths! Good article though ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Cummings was more than just your regular congressman, but I agree that he doesn't reach what should be a high bar for blurb over RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Patrick Day

 * Support article is well sourced. PotentPotables (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support prominent coverage in many major news outlets (note: I am article creator) RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leah Bracknell

 * Support I've added as much sources as possible and this should be ready. ミラP 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support not the best article in the world but satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Catalonia independence trial

 * Am I missing an update that claims there was protests after the verdicts? It happened (BBC) but I mean, I'm not seeing that apparently in the article. --M asem (t) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose until updated. When there's a sufficient section on not just the convictions and sentences, but also protests, take this as support. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added sections for protests, the reactions by the convicted and politicians. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb now as protest section has been added (I added a bit more). Robust article, but perhaps we could beef up the blurb a bit? Proposing alt blurb ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good work by mike_gigs. Either of the alt blurbs is fine by me. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – This may be ITN-worthy, but article needs revision, probably by a native speaker of English. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done a general job of copy-editing the article. Some of the longer run-on sentences should make more sense now, and some grammar/tense issues are fixed. PotentPotables (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 2 - Major geopolitical event. Article quality has been greatly improved. -Zanhe (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 2 - "heavy" is a controversial adjective to use; as for alt1, Jordi Cuixart is not a government official. Neodop (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 2. I intended to add this to the news section at Portal:Law, but that is fed by Wikinews, which apparently is lacking an article on the subject. Does anyone here edit Wikinews? bd2412  T 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody edits Wikinews, it's a dead project. Strange decision to populate Wikipedia portal content from there. Stephen 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For a "dead project", it is surprisingly consistent in keeping the section populated with coverage of recent developments. bd2412  T 03:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, with preference for the alt 2 wording. The pre-trial reaction section would benefit from a reduction of proseline. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * alt blurb 2 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Protected File:Retrat oficial del Vicepresident Oriol Junqueras (cropped).jpg, who received the highest sentence, in case this can be worked in &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we replace "jail" with "prison"? In American English, these are two slightly different things and this instance corresponds to the latter. This blurb has nothing to do with the United States or Canada, but there's no harm in using the term that's correct in all varieties of English :) — MarkH21 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds logical. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anke Fuchs

 * Support Looks long enough to me. There's a bare URL in the Works section which should be fixed, but that's all I think.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted  Kees08  (Talk)   03:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Man Booker prize

 * Oppose only on minor sourcing issues. I found two places on Atwood's need CN as well as her writing section for anything not blue-linked (a single source may be able to cover that). Evaristo's got on existing cn, and some honors are not sourced. I'd be willing to turn a blind eye to those in the latter case - it is reasonably close for posting. But Atwood's definitely need just a few more. --M asem (t) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we usually focus on the winning book, both books are in good shape (as in the altblurb) and this should be good. --M asem (t) 13:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't 2019 Booker Prize be the bold article? --LukeSurlt c 13:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Booker prize was awarded for specific works (The Testaments & Girl, Woman, Other) rather than to the authors in general. --LukeSurlt c 13:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNAWARDS says Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article. Is the winner the book or the author? (I have a feeling we've gone over this in previous years.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For Man Booker, it is the books, not the author. Fortunately both book articles seem good (second is a tad short but likely can grow with this news). Altblurb added and also noting that the name of the awards have officially changed this year --M asem (t) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Prize wasn't nominated for ITN in 2018, but in 2017 the book was the target article. PotentPotables (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose both author's articles need work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the books are supposed to be the target, and that the authors' are "close" (not suitable if they were target but fine as links), I think this should be good. --M asem (t) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm being BOLD and Posted this (using the altblurb highlighting the books which we normally do for Booker prize), after making sure a few CNs on "The Testaments" were fixed. Otherwise I think this would have scrolled off despite being ready. Atwood's picture added to image protection queue. --M asem  (t) 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) End of 2019 Ecuadorian protests

 * Support seems reasonable. Banedon (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support major development. -Zanhe (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support major news. Well referenced. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a fine looking article indeed ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Hallelujah. I only wish Hong Kong protests would end in a similar fashion. STSC (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Harold Bloom

 * Comment As someone who does research and teaches in his field—for what that's worth—I would not call him a "transformative world leader" in literary theory and criticism as far as a blurb is concerned. He is famous outside academia for The Western Canon and his curmudgeonly behavior, and he has published an awful lot of scholarship, but his most likely candidate for a "transformative" work (The Anxiety of Influence) is neither a seminal text for Romanticists nor for psychoanalytic critics. I'd love to see a blurb for a literary scholar, but he's probably not the one. PaulKeeperson (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the Writing Career section is fairly undereferenced ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per mike. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Ecuador protests

 * Remove obviously it's a wrap. One more blurb if you want. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (removal) - Very glad to see the unrest has ended peacefully. STSC (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal and support blurb – IMO, this is a blurb-able event. "This new agreement was the result of hours of negotiations, live on TV". What a novel concept. Apparently, the revolution will be televised!--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal and a blurb, if just because I don't think any other 2019 protest has yet ended, let alone peacefully (or in a week). Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: 2019_Ecuadorian_protests could use a little expansion.  Spencer T• C 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , done. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics

 * Oppose on quality. Duflo looks fine, but first two are not quite there on sourcing. Also oppose "youngest" part of blurb - we didn't do that for Goodenough who was the oldest winner, shouldn't do that here. --M asem (t) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also seeded Banerjee and Duflo's images for protection. --M asem (t) 20:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough regarding the blurb; alt blurb added. Agree with you on quality. Not sure whether I'll have time to help on these, but wanted to get them up here. Thanks for image help. Kenmelken (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not far off. I don't know economics well so can't be much help but I'd say its about an hour's worth of work between the two at worst. --M asem (t) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now Ready --M asem (t) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we use altblurb, we should restore the correct alphabetical listing: The 2019 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer for their work in poverty reduction. Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. I fixed the altblurb and struck the original. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb - sourcing has been fixed on both articles, no more CN tags present. PotentPotables (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The articles have been greatly improved. Davey2116 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . El_C 15:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2019 Hong Kong protests

 * Support (removal) - There have been no frequent updates on the article, it's a waste of space in 'ongoing'. STSC (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The crisis certainly isn't over, and the protests are still major and continuing. But actual new developments are few and far between, so I guess we can remove it for the time being. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal - While there has been expansion in recent days (a large one on October 13), it mostly relates to expanding older information. The newest substantive information in the article seems to me to be at least 1 week old.  If there were more recent information worth documenting, it should be there.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are least 5 major updates in the last 3 days (in addition to wordsmiths), and additionally, there are more elements adjacent to the situation that are not appropriate to include at this main article related to how the protests have affected American businesses (NBA, Apple, South Park, Blizzard Entertainment, etc.) which is still a major discussion point. --M asem (t) 18:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the situation comparable to the Venz. government problems about 6 months ago - there were many sub-articles on specific details being updated, that it didn't appear there were that many updates on the target one from the ITN box. But we kept it on the basis those other updates were happening. --M asem (t) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok which sub-article is getting substantive updates about ongoing events? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At minimum List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests and Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests at minimum. I am sure there are others but I'm not clear on the whole breadth of topics involved. --M asem (t) 19:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests last update October 8th "Reactions" article is orange tagged, is irrelevant to the protests (except for PRC reactions) and I don't see the substantive update. Thanks for clarifying exactly why this should be taken down. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Only one main article per ongoing event, not a group of sub-articles, should be considered when assessing the updates. STSC (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how we judged teh Venz. government case, and I would expect that certain large long events (ala Brexit) have the same situation: at some point, the updates are more frequent in sub-articles and not the main, but the main is still the best "launch" point for tthose looking for it. --M asem (t) 19:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The ITN criteria on update always refers to one main article, not a group of related articles, per event. STSC (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And again, we have been flexible in the past when the ongoing event grows well beyond a single article. This is how we have dealt with news events constructed in Summary Style approach. If we were talking a blurb, I would definitely expect one - or two - targets that have been clearly updated before posting, but Ongoing is more unique. Heck, this is how the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup stories work - we link to the overarcing topic page, but the updates mostly come from sub-pages, with the main topic page updated completely on the event closure. --M asem (t) 01:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Y'all realize that Masems principal argument - the updates are in the sub-articles - has been debunked right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been debunked in your mind, but not in mine. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So just tell us what "sub article" has been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019 Hong Kong protests. Banedon (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Latest update "During protests on 6 October" .... I had this same problem prying the empanada drama out of he box ... "consensus" that something which no longer belonged in the box did belong in the box. Will an admin please just acknowledge that this is stale and yank it already? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd have to convince them that there's consensus, and the way this nomination has been going, I'd say they're more likely to conclude that there is consensus against this being stale and therefore will not yank it. Or, to put it another way: "Y'all realize that LaserLeg's principal argument - that the article is stale - has been debunked right?" Banedon (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked you what article had been updated, and when you offered one, I showed you the last update was from October 6th --- I mean .... I can't even grasp how you're still insisting that it's not stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Latest revision as of 20:30, 14 October 2019". I can't even grasp how you're reading 14 October 2019 as October 6th. Hell, there've been almost 100 updates to that article since Octboer 6. Are you calling all of them insignificant, unsubstantive, etc? Well, good luck with your attempt to remove this. I consider this conversation over. Banedon (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * LMFAO really? Is that all you're doing is clicking "history"? Do you not actually read this stuff before commenting? The updates from the 14th are refs and content tweaks, no new content. I mean ... really? Really? You're not just trolling me? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) You're not trolling me, wow, you just click history, scroll down the list, and then dig in on keeping this in the box. Try reading the content please. Wow. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Charming to have you back, we all missed you. Wow 2003:D6:2729:FF9F:81E3:D836:355E:F212 (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The game is now truly afoot - this is bigger news now than any point prior. The PRC overplayed their hand on the Morey business, and now everyone's watching to see what's next.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - concerns that there are no updates are now invalid as I have updated the article. The violence has escalated this weekend with the first homemade bomb and a stabbed police officer.  starship  .paint  (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Keep The last three days has had significant new information added to the article. Much different from the last time this was up for removal. I voted to Remove at that time, FWIW.130.233.3.131 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – In view of the continuing intractability of the situation, this needs to stay in Ongoing. It's China's No. 1 political problem. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Even though it'll be "ongoing" for a long time, that isn't a reason to remove it from Ongoing. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. I just updated List of October 2019 Hong Kong protests and there is plenty more to write or translate from the Chinese Wikipedia. feminist (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Removed; re-added) Ongoing removal: Trump impeachment

 * Support, and consider replacing if and when an impeachment vote occurs in the House of Representatives (which, if passed, will move the issue to the Senate). As of now the inquiry itself is under question because of not adhering to the rules of the past three presidential impeachment inquiries. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the inquiry itself is not at all "under question" because there is no requirement to hold a vote to begin such an inquiry and the rightist shrieking "it's illegitimate" is not the sort of tidbit we'd feature on the MP -- exactly the reason it's time to come down. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support due to lack of meaningful updates. In the past week, aside from the addition of citations, the only major updates that have been made have been the results of public opinion polling on the matter, which is newsworthy but not enough to warrant Ongoing status in my opinion. I would support putting this back up once things actually get moving, but as of now nothing of note is being added to the article, just opinions like "51% of the public supports impeachment" and "Senator Bob doesn't support impeachment", etc. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WTF – It is called a weekend. There was major testimony on Friday. Today is Monday. One hour discussion while U.S. editors are still commuting to work.--- Coffee  and crumbs  12:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A long weekend at that, holiday Monday (Columbus Day) in the U.S., holiday Monday (Thanksgiving) in Canada. Government inquiries are taking a few days off. (But no vote -- no opinion on this, other than surprised at the speed.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in Atlanta -- but I too even as the nominator am surprised at the warp speed with which this came down --LaserLegs (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I supported taking this down, but I too was shocked by how fast it actually came down with only three votes. It needed more time and input ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish we had this sort of speed when it comes to posting RD items.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal First, this should be re-added for the time being until a proper consensus is reached. This story is still anticipating regular major updates. I'm sympathetic to the nom's concern that retaining this in ongoing makes editors less likely to support a potential blurb on the investigations in the near future, but in my view, it will be difficult to get us all to agree which events are blurbable and I don't see a reason not to leave this up until we do. As for blurbs on other Trump topics, I believe we should post more of those as well, but I don't think removing this from ongoing now will make that more likely. Davey2116 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal I agree with the nominator rationale. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I nominated the formal start of the impeachment hearings when this came through expecting it only to be a blurb, because, as noted then, this is a months-long process, and whereas we can reasonable expect the house to pass the articles of impeachment, whether that will be voted on by the Senate is unclear, and last time that happened, at Watergate, was a 6-some months long process. A blurb is not necessary at this point; should the House pass the articles of impeachment, that would be an appropriate blurb (not ongoing), and only until the Senate actually takes up the trial part would ongoing be appropriate. (I will say, an hour to make the decision given times of day relative to where this story occurs is far too fast, but not disagreeing with net outcome). --M asem (t) 14:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal. I think it was OK to have this up at first but, as previously noted, it is now likely to be a long-running process. If developments start happening fast (as they do with Brexit) then we can reconsider. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support removal per nom.  Spencer T• C 00:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs -- Rockstone   talk to me!   14:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal ongoing exists precisely for items that are going to be in the news for a while. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per Coffeeandcrumbs and Banedon. Brexit and Hong Kong protests have been ongoing for even longer and are both kept. This is exactly what "ongoing" is for. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's odd that these recent oppose !vote have come after the House has decided not to vote for starting an investigation (yes, this "inquiry" was not even a formal investigation!), thereby abandoning this most recent charade. Are we supposed to keep articles in Ongoing even after the actors have left the stage?130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Or it could be because I have been updating this article daily and it is a quality article on an ongoing subject in the news. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 130.233.2.131 you are incorrect, the House sets its own rules and doesn't need a full vote to start an impeachment investigation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they set their own rules, and even when playing by their own rules, and within their own clique, they still voted "no". "Unofficial gathering of like-minded politicans agree to do nothing" is what you want to keep in Ongoing.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This is a major ongoing event that continues to get front page news coverage globally. If this isn't what "Ongoing" was intended for then we need to just shut it down. I also think the removal was somewhat premature and at present there is no consensus to remove. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment In the few days since I !voted, the inquiry has still been major news, and the consensus has gotten far murkier. This should be re-added as the removal at the time had only three supports, which did not constitute a legitimate consensus; and there's no consensus for removal now. Davey2116 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reposted due to lack of consensus for removal. Initial removal was unreasonably hasty, with not even an hour and only three commenters between posting and removal. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that removal was on the hasty side. At the same time, there is clearly not consensus for this to remain in the Ongoing section either.  Spencer T• C 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to remove the subject from ongoing. It was added with a clear consensus. A change in its status should also require consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This was deservedly absent from Ongoing for over a week. Make a new nomination if you want it back up.130.233.2.47 (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. There was never any consensus to remove it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Trim The entry in Ongoing seems too wordy, taking 5 words, when none of the other entries need more than three.  I reckon that just one word would be enough – "Impeachment" – and if we go to two, like the title of this section here, that's plenty: "Trump impeachment".  We surely don't need words like "Donald" or "against", right? Andrew D. (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It would have to be "Trump impeachment inquiry". You see, this isn't actually an impeachment proceeding, and to use "Trump impeachment" would suggest something that it is not. It's an "inquery", and unlike in the UK, in the US there is no legal definition of an "inquiry". Even the subpoenas carry no sanction. We might as well shorten it to "Trump impeachment brouhaha" or the slightly longer "Trump impeachment coffee klatch".
 * The linked article uses the word "proceedings" repeatedly to describe what's happening. We don't need a particular vague word to describe the current phase as the point of ongoing is that this is a protracted affair and these typically go through several stages.  Brexit, for example, doesn't get into where we're at exactly because the exit is turning out to be quite an elaborate process. Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sulli

 * Support. I and others have fixed up missing refs, and the article seems comprehensive and neutral enough otherwise. Good to go IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted --BorgQueen (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Remove Brexit from Ongoing
<div class="boilerplate archived" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Au contraire. I think October 19 will be of some importance; certainly Parliament sitting on a Saturday for the first time in—how long?—is worthy of some note? Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove if there is a deal on the 19th great blurb it. If BoJo asks for an extension blurb that too. If the UK crashes out certainly blurb that, and if they revoke article 50 release the doves. Right now the only "updates" are both sides insisting "there is a path to a deal but lots to be done" which is the same bullshit we've been hearing for years. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Retain in Ongoing This continues to be major news, frequently on the front page on both sides of the Atlantic. That's what ongoing is for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal per above. This is an ongoing event, with significant updates regularly; I do not see a problem with the current ongoing section, there are lots of events there because there are lots of events going on right now. Davey2116 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove per LaserLegs. If a major development happens it should get a blurb, but at this point it's just ongoing churn with nothing of note to report. Morgan695 (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (removal) - What is the point to put Brexit in the 'ongoing' section? We all know that the negotiation is ongoing until it happens. STSC (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Keep Yes, I know this is still "in the news" and the article is still being updated. Thank you for making the argument for me. There's no "space" requirement for Ongoing that I'm aware of. But if there were, I suggest we remove the Trump Impeachment link. A drama started by the man himself to prove how foolish and gullible the media are and we obliged him. Additionally, the article is shite. Take a look at the diffs and the talk page.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Drop your tiresome holier-than-thou shtick. ITN does not operate in an editorial capacity. The impeachment inquiry was in the news. We'd have looked ridiculous if we didn't publish anything.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support (removal) I agree with User:Spencer who has put up a very fine argument. This can be posted back later on easily when it comes in international headlines. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. Not this again... Unless an extension is agreed, (in which case removal would probably be appropriate), this story is going to continue to be major news through to 31 October. If anything this is the crunch point, with only 17 days to go and no definite resolution in sight yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support keeping on ITN - We're in the last two weeks before Brexit is to go into effect. We're going to look absolutely stupid if we pull the ongoing entry this early with how politically frantic the next few days are going to be.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pull I'll repeat myself (again) that nothing newsworthy has happened since the big court decision that was blurbed. Whatever happens at the end of the month will probably be blurbworthy. We're really stretching the purpose of ongoing here. Separately, anyone wishing to figure out what has happened in the last month that is significant enough to have this on the real front page of the internet would struggle to do so by clicking through to this massive article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The remove premise is wrong. The next major event is this week - the EU Leader's meeting and the Saturday sitting of the UK Parliament. These will certainly generate significant directional changes one way or another. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – What, now? Just when B-day is getting close? Nah. – Sca (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 17 days is close? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Closer than three years. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose if something even more significant happens, blurb it. Until then, Brexit is a clear and present danger. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove – This article has become bloated and gone significantly below our quality standards. It is completely unreadable! There is no way this article would manage to get bold linked from anywhere else on the Main Page. Continuous appearance on the Main Page has only contributed to this article's deterioration. We should pull this article and allow editors the opportunity to nominate a subpage for ongoing. Pull this embarrassing shitty article. --- Coffee  and crumbs  15:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove The only recent updates are a few minor procedural things. The process seems to be in a holding pattern until the actual day of the Brexit. And yes, the article is really hard to read in its bloated state. Blurb it then. Remove the ongoing now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Still being regularly updated and it would unwise to remove at this time, with the Saturday sitting of Parliament being just days away. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove — limited updates over the last 2 weeks, with the most notable changes revolving around a future referendum on Scottish independence in 2021. Most edits are maintenance rather than content. Can easily be re-added as a blurb when something major happens again. The article is cumbersome to navigate due to bloat (79kb prose!) as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reiterating that there are hardly any substantial updates to this article (edits on Oct 14 were almost entirely citation related with 1 adding the name of a Bill introduced last month,0 on Oct 15, and 1 edit updating an old statistic on Oct 16). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * we are split down the middle on this. There is no consensus to remove this item, but equally there is no consensus for it to remain on the template. Supporters of removal say there are limited or insignificant updates occuring; opponents say the article is being regularly updated. What's the truth of the matter? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Keep) -- Seems like bad timing to take this off. Not only are there new developments daily, but given the swiftly approaching deadline, it seems this is only likely to heat up even more in the next two weeks. Kenmelken (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Looks like opposes (= keep) marginally (10:8) outnumber supports (= pull). – Sca (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: Still current. – Sca (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. I would hope that whatever the tallies, an admin looking at this discussion might take the WP:COMMONSENSE view that to keep this topic in the "Ongoing" section for a couple of weeks when nothing was happening, and then remove it just when things are kicking off again, would be rather contradictory... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Removal as per nom. However, if individual events become newsworthy, those should definitely appear ITN -- Rockstone   talk to me!   14:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. The Brexit saga is getting into a real crunch time period now. There are daily developments of some sort and, as noted above, things are going to heat up as the deadline gets closer. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. As we get closer to the 31st there will only be more news about this, especially before the upcoming summit. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 *   Still current – now talking 'deal.'    – Sca (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal - It makes no sense to remove it from Ongoing at this time. Try again after Brexit has been implemented.BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There will be updates soon. Official reports - PM & Junker - confirming new deal agreed. But N.I. DUP not on board so no confirmed "accepted" deal. This is all highly relevant so suggest it is left open. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal Deal has now been agreed, so lots of things are happening and it should be left open. PotentPotables (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal. I would have supported if I'd got to it some days ago, but given today's developments, upcoming votes, and the impending 31 October deadline, I suspect this won't be out of ITN until Brexit either happens (in which case we can go ahead with a blurb) or we get another extension, in which case we can just remove from Ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources – re UK-EU 'deal' – AP, BBC, Reuters, AFP. (Requires parliamentary approval on both sides of the Channel.) – Sca (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal This has been dominating the front pages of newspapers in the UK and the drama is being followed closely in other countries. It's just a single word of six letters and so isn't taking up much space compared to other ITN entries. Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Hevrin Khalaf

 * Comment I would like a few more biographical details before supporting. As it is, even her birthdate is not precise. Institution of her civil engineering degree, family, and so on would also be appreciated.130.233.3.131 (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I found this which has more bio (no birth date though, and a different year) but have no idea if reliable. Tell me yes, and I will update the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Life section is suitable now.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - highly notable death. Article is well sourced. -Zanhe (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I was wondering if she might be a WP:BLP1E, as there don't seem to be many sources that predate her killing, but the roles she's had suggest she's probably notable anyway. Sourcing and quality looks OK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Stephen Moore (actor)

 * Oppose – Notable roles section needs to be sourced, changed to prose, and merged to Acting career section. Otherwise, this is a stub with a list addendum. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Brigid Kosgei: new women's marathon record

 * Comment While in the same area, I think the two different stories require two different blurbs, there's far too much that could mis-construed between these (one is an official WR, the other is not, for example). --M asem (t) 17:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support first blurb or alt2, i.e. individual. (Kosgei's article seems decent enough that both could be bolded.) Maybe just refer to the Chicago marathon as the Chicago marathon, rather than 'an event'... Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 – This record has been in place for 16 years. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose arbitrary record in a non-IAAF event. Shouldn't have posted the other one either. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Chicago marathon is very much a IAAF event, hence why *this* is called a World's Record, whereas the other wasn't. --M asem (t) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in fact one of the World Marathon Majors.--- Coffee  and crumbs  23:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, I misunderstood the alt-blurb combination. Sorry about that. Still opposed to sports trivia in the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 2 per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 per above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the history of posting WRs in athletics? Dalilah Muhammad broke a 16-year-old record in the 400 m hurdles in July, and improved on it at the World Championships earlier this month, for example. The July WR does not seem to have been nominated. The October WR was mentioned in the World Athletics Championships discussion, but nothing came of it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT2. No one commented on the quality of the article but it looks pretty reasonable to me. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Operation Peace Spring

 * Support - Still in the news, article is getting updated as well Sherenk1 (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - per Sherenk1 --TILRs (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment it's orange tagged for neutrality, usually a no-go for MP --LaserLegs (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The page is under 1RR, but people are giving live updates on the battle, resulting in problems that can't be solved quickly...  starship .paint  (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (conditionally) ... if the orange tag is resolved. STSC (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . El_C 17:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ding Shisun

 * Support on condition. A well formatted article. I cannot check the sources (language: 9 sources in Chinese and 2 in English), but per nominator's previous BLP work I assume that they are in order. I am somewhat uncertain about this from the article: In an interview with China Central Television, Ding described his tenure as president a failure, because the English-language CGTN reference, which refers to the same CCTV interview, this is not mentioned, and in fact describes Ding's time at PKU as easy-going and approachable. I am somewhat uneasy about my support here, because this line is a near-direct quote from Ding (the only one in the article), concerning his most notable achievement. Might you point me to the line in reference 5 where I can find this?130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the direct quote from the source: "在接受央视的采访时，丁石孙说：我是个失败的校长 ...". Translation: "In an interview with CCTV, Ding Shisun said: I am a failed president ..." This is also mentioned in the Radio France obituary. -Zanhe (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good work.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support No issues. Appears to be well referenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Burkina Faso mosque attack

 * Oppose The article is pretty much a WP:COATRACK, having very little information about the attack itself. In the body, I count 6 sentences about the attack, with 27 sentences that are not about the attack. TompaDompa (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa, I disagree. The article contains whatever information has been reported so far. Feel free to remove anything if you find it is not relevant to the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  17:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with TompaDompa. The Attack section is just a copy-paste of the lede, which is itself not very informative, while the Background section is unnecessarily long. COATRACK is deserved here. If this is a summary of all information reported so far, then we will have to wait for more reporting to get the article posted.130.233.3.131 (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you click on the links above, you will find that a similar type of coverage, which is expected in initial reports. Are you going to claim the AFP and BBC are also coatracking ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I click them and find that they are not suitable for a Wiki article, let alone the front page. If more info comes in, perhaps that will change but at this moment, no.130.233.3.131 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:STUB, hidden by the fact that there is a lot of tangential information. The tangential information is not necessarily excessive for a proper article, but as it stands, the article is almost entirely tangential information. We are of course limited by what the sources report, but unless we get more information that is directly relevant to the attack, this isn't up to snuff for the main page. TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support. Labelling the article as WP:COATRACK is well wide of the mark. It is not about "one or more connected but tangential subjects", and there is no evidence that it has been "edited to make a point about something else", as suggested at COATRACK. The "Background" section is fine as part of a comprehensive article on this subject, and the only issue with it is that the section on the attacks themselves is too short at the moment. It would certainly be desirable to expand that, but I don't think it's a showstopper right now - as the nom says, this is a start-class article - hence the weak support. Significance-wise, with sixteen deaths and geopolitical implications, this is notable enough to be posted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2019 Ecuadorian protests

 * Comment the article was posted on ITN a few days ago, I can't see any significant changes or major turns in the protests since then? PotentPotables (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * May be worth considering for Ongoing? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe for ongoing, the activities seem to a slow burn, but the indigenous rights group now seems to have de facto control of the capital Quito, if that was worth putting in a blurb with an RS? Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend ongoing. We posted this to ITN not two days ago; it was removed quickly, because of the large number of recent stories. Posting again would be overkill, in my opinion, unless some other headline-making incident occurs; but ongoing is appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ongoing per Vanamonde93. Banedon (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde93 seems to support ongoing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ongoing. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose once you seize an oil pipeline and start using weapons don't you become a terrorist? Strange how bad the POV situation has gotten at Wikipedia. Anyway, the updates are sparse one-line updates of what would be major events -- not much of a main page article. #twocents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs)
 * Just for info, posted last time at 06:25 on 10 October 2019. These are the edits since then. 11,114 bytes → 41,411 bytes? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As the cliche goes, "One [person]'s terrorist is another [person]'s freedom fighter." --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per Vanamonde93. The situation is comparable to the Hong Kong protests, which is in ongoing right now. -Zanhe (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The situation, maybe, but the article quality isn't even close. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree the situation is similar to the Hong Kong protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing as per Vanamonde93, significant events happening on the ground which can reasonably and logistically be placed on the ongoing list. Droodkin (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The article has been frequently updated. STSC (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon Hagibis (2019)

 * Oppose "could be" tells me this is not yet ITN appropriate. Wait for landfall/damage/deaths. --M asem (t) 14:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above and for the fact the article is not of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added blurb. Nine deaths so far. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Death toll now up to 24. I would support in principle once the article is good enough. NorthernFalcon (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle – Reuters puts death toll at 23. – Sca (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please avoid using superlative language in the blurbs. Altblurb 3 is the best one, but no reason to try to make the storm seem more significant than it needs to be. --M asem (t) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * AP now saying "as high as" 33, which never would have been permitted in the Olden Days.Meanwhile, Reuters now strikes a more staid stance with "at least 30." – Sca (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Meant in terms of saying "its biggest storm"; obviously the death toll is quantified as we normally to. --M asem (t) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but all of the given hooks are too superlative. Something like "Typhoon Hagibis kills at least 35 people in Japan." should suffice. (death toll per WaPo) Morgan695 (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Noteworthy storm, alt blurb 3 is fine but I will also support a simple "Typhoon Hagibis kills at least 35 people in Japan." per above if the consensus is in favor of it. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, as per Davey2116 above. Official death toll seems to be now 37. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - the "meteorological history" section is almost entirely unreferenced, and the bits about landfall in the preparation section (which arguably should be in "impact") need citing too. Support on notability, if these issues are resolved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The AP on Oct. 14 quotes Japan's Kyodo News agency on death toll of 48. Unfortunately, the article verges on WP:HATRACK. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support alt2 because it gets the point across and acknowledges the damage but doesn't use superlatives. It's in the news so it should definitely be up there. Pie3141527182 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the evacuations are NEVER more important then the deaths and damage that occurred. I would say that the ≥56 people who died from the storm are more important then any number of evacuations that are occurring. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on the lack of met references Sorry, I know this is extremely notable for the deaths and destruction it left in Japan, but I must oppose the nomination based on the lack of references. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging who is one of the better editors on hurricans/tropical storms/typhoons to see if they can help on the storm history. --M asem  (t) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WPTC lost its auto-archiver for tropical cyclone advisories, so we're severely hampered with how we can handle meteorological histories of typhoons. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Reg Watson

 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support when improved with more sources - not a problem with obituaries in The Guardian, The Age, the UK Telegraph, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I’m sure there are sources out there but the work has not been done yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sara Danius

 * Support At 1606 characters, it's on the short side, but just long enough not to be considered a stub. Thanks to BabbaQ for sorting out a few referencing issues. Looks good to go otherwise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Article expanded now. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  12:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support She became internationally known through her work in the Swedish Academy and as its first female permanent secretary. (You might remember the clip where she announced the Nobel prize for Bob Dylan). No blurb though. --<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">cart <em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk  10:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per W.carter --TILRs (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. I did !vote above, but this doesn't seem controversial and three others say it's ready so I've posted it. Anyone may revert or challenge me if they disagree. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Kipchoge marathon record

 * Support in principle. Breaking the two-hour mark in a marathon is a huge sport achievement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, two hours was always the "unobtainable" barrier. Worthy of a blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was not "a marathon", but "a run over a marathon distance". Not an official race, or record. When this gets done in an official race, then it is a dead cert for posting. Until then, no. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Who cares whether it's "official" or not? The purpose of ITN is to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". This is clearly in the news, across the world, and is trending on Twitter and so on, we have a reasonable quality article on Kipchoge, so clearly people will want to find it. Even Seb Coe, the IAAF head, has commented that this is a significant achievement. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Marathon" didn't orignally mean a race (although it is usually used that context), it is running or walking an exact distance. Covering that distance in a record time is what's making news, not that somebody won a race. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - historic record of sorts. Article seems ready.BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Too much unsourced information in Competition record sections. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * almost all of the results there are in the IAAF source, although it takes a bit of navigating around to find them all. And there doesn't seem to be a way to create a URL link to specific years or sections of the results pages. I'm not sure how to do this better? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, consider me neutral. I spot checked several stats. In most case, they were verifiable in the source you cited. --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The event itself, INEOS 1:59 Challenge, could be linked in the blurb. TompaDompa (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The sponsor is not important really. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Proposed altblurb.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support An amazing achievement many years in the making. Getting lots of news. Kipchoge does hold the world record. That it was not in an official race is sort of meh, it is the distance... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - an astounding achievement that is in the news.  starship .paint  (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose' pacemakers matter. There's a reason the World Record for the Women's marathon must be set in all-women competitions. It's a nice achievement, but save the blurb for if/when it becomes a real world record. Banedon (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support all over the news, notable and something our readers will be looking to learn more about. Indeed, Wikipedia's opportunity to demonstrate the differences between a competition record and a standalone record, and assist our audience.  Post it!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  14:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted did not yet change picture but that's ready to go. --M asem (t) 14:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I edit conflicted with Masem updating the template, but I would have used the original blub as I agree with Doc James that the sponsor doesn't really need mentioning. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Robert Forster

 * Oppose per nom. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Alexei Leonov

 * Support and probably should be added quickly due to prominence. The article is in good shape and is being improved after this news broke. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. support blurb per below comments, and add that the high importance of Leonov in the history of flight seems apparent. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose because of quality of the article but should be a blurb when ready. The first person to ever to perform an EVA was a major accomplishment in human history. --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, as well as Oppose blurb - first man to walk is space is not the same as a world-transformative leaders, and I'm not seeing the type of coverage to make a blurb necessary here. --M asem (t) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Great man. His achievement, both in terms of the risk and the impact is second only to those of Armstrong and Gagarin, at least in my opinion.--5.44.170.9 (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support blurb once ready. There aren't many actions a human could have conducted that are so unearthly in their uniqueness.  The first spacewalk is certainly one of them and per the IP, this places Leonov squarely up there with Neil and Yuri.  I hope someone with the knowledge can fix the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb based on importance, oppose based on quality at the moment. The impact of the first space walk was huge. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the quality improves. This achievement is, quite literally, out of this world. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if every statement is referenced, the article is still not postable. One gigantic biography section? No thanks. How about early life, military career, as a cosmonaut, post space program. Before we wax on about his contributions too much, the Soviets would have found someone to go out that door. If this is gonna get a blurb, the article needs to be good. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Before we wax on about his contributions too much, the Soviets would have found someone to go out that door. wtf?! Absurd.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And instead of Armstrong NASA could have retrained Ham to become, for his second spaceflight, the first primate to walk on the Moon and we would all have known his name in school and mourned his death in 1983. But Armstrong made his one small step well after Leonov made his to set that portion of the human achievements of the 1960s into motion. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready Very significant accomplishment and certainly something readers would be interested in. Also a good opportunity to break from the Western pop culture bias. EternalNomad (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - It's true Leonov's spacewalk was a massive achievement for the Space Race, but he was not himself a transformative world leader. Sadly, does not meet that particular standard for a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . My opposite view is that this not being either a blurb or a death listing as soon as possible is sort of embarrassing, given the prominence of the subject, for Wikipedia. At least in my point of view, which I've tried to explain below. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Transformative world leader status. The human races' reach and growth took a transforming new step when Leonov opened that capsule door and floated out into space. When the technology on his body enabled him to become a form of cosmonaut-piloted outerwear spacecraft, he carried the human race further off-planet. The astronauts who walked on the Moon did another kind of spacewalk, but a spacewalk nonetheless. Leonov was the first in the history of life on Earth to open a door and walk out into orbit. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Space-walking astronauts are one of the most enduring images of modern history. And Leonov was the first of them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Article looks much better now. Still a lot of unreferenced awards, but I'm ok with hacking them off if we can't find sources. There will still be plenty left ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, oppose on quality. The article is littered with "citation needed" templates. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 20:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Done, no more CN templates. We should post a blurb for the first of the Skywalkers. We posted Neil Armstrong's death quickly with comments to the tune of "We shouldn't even have to discuss this". Wakari07 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and kudos to for a great job improving citations for the article. -Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Randy Kryn and Vanamonde93. I would also like to mention Leonov's second space mission, which ushered in the era of US-Russian cooperation in space.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb quality is vastly improved, and certainly notable enough. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  22:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, article looks a fine now, thanks to all who helped. A bit more lead would be a service to readers, - there was more to his life than the first wal in space, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment please replace the image with one of Leonov now, this is the top story. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The plan is to cycle the pic through the Nobel laureates one by one, giving each around six hours, before they all drop off the bottom. Thus Leonov should be the main pic by about tomorrow. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize

 * Support, I would support him (because his peace have made that) TILRs. It will be more better article. I should support adding Every Nobel Peace Prize-related articles to 'In the news' TILRs (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose About a dozen marked CNs, but that's all I'm seeing stopping Ahmed's article. Should not be hard to get that resolved. --M asem (t) 13:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Image above is seeded for image protection. --M asem (t) 16:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've managed to get it down to 7 marked CNs, added citations for quite a few things and removed some false info. Should be very near to a postable state! PotentPotables (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's down to five CNs now, but I'm off for dinner. If anyone wants to give them a fix while I'm gone, I'd be grateful PotentPotables (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Looking much better now. Many citations added. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article is down to one CN, which is a much better state than it was in. Thanks to all who helped find sources and clean it up! PotentPotables (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. Only one "citation needed" template left. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 20:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment ALL "citation needed" templates have been replaced with sources! PotentPotables (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking Ready --M asem (t) 20:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Per above. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. Excellent job! --Tone 20:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Credits posted to editors &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tsai Ying-wen (political scientist)

 * Comment: Zanhe, any chance you have access to more information related to Tsai's research focus (e.g. what does he argue in From Monarchy and Autocracy to Democracy?) It's a decent, well-referenced article, but it just doesn't have the depth of coverage for the subject's central profession that I would like to see in an RD article.  Spencer T• C 00:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately information about him is really hard to find as all search results are overwhelmed by false hits of his namesake, the president of Taiwan. Also few academic publications in Taiwan and China are accessible online. -Zanhe (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Weak support per above.  Spencer T• C 01:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Literature

 * Support, articles are okay. Störm   (talk)  11:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Articles are okay I guess, but Olga's is a bit undereferenced. They're better than other prize winners this week though. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose both target articles inadequate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither authors' article is in good shape. (and unlike the other Laureates, I don't know how much I can do to help those. --M asem  (t) 13:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both articles require extensive editing. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 14:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll try to do something about Handke tomorrow, need sleep first. I don't know a thing about Olga Tokarczuk, though, and if someone beats me to Handke, I'd be pleased. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Beginning now. Condition as I start is this. My first step was to take away the tags because they discredit the article and our work in the eyes of a public. I also don't want to add a tag "under sonstruction" but avoiding edit conflicts will be appreciated. I promise to keep edits short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can never support a controversy section on a BLP. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that it's now formally done, although far away from what he'd deserve. Coffeeandcrumbs, I boiled down the controversies to a summary, and don't understand your "never". He caused severe controversy, - we can not hide that. Or do you just mean put it in line with the biography? - So all: please look again, and consider a 2019 news about him alone, because 2018 Olga Tokarczuk is a different story, actually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work Gerda! An IP address (173.13.67.91) has re-inserted the controversy section, completely unsourced, so that will now probably need monitoring and removing/sourcing PotentPotables (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing. A lot od detailed sourced controversy stuff is already commented out in the article, - at present undue weight. New controversy now about the Nobel Prize itself. Yes, monitoring will be needed. I still think it's now in decent enough shape to be mentioned. The Rambling Man, Masem, Susmuffin? - Blurb simply: The 2019 Nobel Prize in Literature is given to Peter Handke (pictured). - I had no time for the 2018 recipient. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I really think it would be poor to only have Handke in the blurb. Olga's is not so far away but does require someone more familiar in literature to tackle it. --M asem (t) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why can't we have Olga in a separate blurb? Why should we clutter the news with any "Following the 2018 cancellation"? Readers will find that, I am sure. How I miss Poeticbent. He could have done justice to Olga. If we split the two recipients we could have both pictured, otherwise I am sure who will win a beauty contest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not about timeliness or applying logic here Gerda, I'm afraid, it's about wikilawyering. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have just shown it possible to get 9 Laureate articles up to main page posting within 48-72hrs (at worst) with a bit of work. It should not be that hard. This should be where we can show the open wiki nature of WP should shine. Olga's is not that far off but just needs someone more aware of how the literature world works to do some source searching. Could we just feature Handke, sure but that's really disrespecting Olga here. --15:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I write this, there is one paragraph left which just needs sources to confirm works were published. It is 98% there. --M asem  (t) 16:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As before, it's about getting more EYES on the pages. People who may have the expertise may wish to help if they see it on the main page in need of help.  Right now we're keeping this present news story a closed shop from 99.9% of our readers who don't know about the arcane process of ITNC.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, and we want to make sure these pages are in good enough shape (meeting core policies particularly BLP) before they hit the main page. eg: Goodenough's could have a LOT more written about him from what I did the other day, I did enough to get it to front page. This is no different from any other RD, RD blurb, sporting event, awards show, major disaster, etc. Nobels do not get a special pass, but should also be some of the easiest to update once they are announced and articles on their bios come flooding in. --M asem (t) 16:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Olga's is done. Ready. --M asem (t) 16:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also both File:Peter-handke.jpg and File:Olga_Tokarczuk_(2018).jpg seeded for image protection. --M asem (t) 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 18:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrés Gimeno

 * Support Article looks good enough. Referencing is there. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) 2019 Halle attack

 * Oppose sad but relatively trivial. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedure. Neither of the blurbs incorporates the updated article. The first blurb is far too verbose. The second might be suitable. 130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had this confused with the recent truck attack, also in Germany130.233.2.235 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose on notability. Sadly plenty of worse crimes occur daily. Also oppose on procedure. ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only major thing that seems to be sticking from this is the fact it was live-streamed to only some-thousand of people on Twitch, otherwise a small event. --M asem (t) 13:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Coverage is very widespread, though – due to Germany's history in the first half of the 20th century and to xenophobic fringers in today's eastern Germany. (Here's an interesting sidebar about the Halle shooter.) – Sca (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh its clearly widespread, no question it meets that part of ITN. But it was only two deaths, which we (at ITNC) would not normally blink at, and the live-streaming part is only highlighted since that brings comparisons to Christchurch. --M asem (t) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, only two random victims, but the underlying issues are current and very serious. And as various observers (including Merkel) have noted, the death toll could have been much higher. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: One of Spiegel's stories is headlined, "The lone perpetrator, who wasn't alone" ("Der Einzeltäter, der nicht allein war") . – Sca (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Operation Peace Spring

 * Support - Article is well-sourced and laid out. It’s beyond a stub and I have rated it accordingly as a Start. The topic is clearly in the news and a timely ITN addition. Jusdafax (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment outside the background and flag salad sections, the article is pretty thin. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – Get rid of the flag salad and flesh out the article. Four sources added above that may help with that. – Sca (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this was in the news before it actually started. Banedon (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support on notability with preference for blurb 1. The quality is fine in my opinion; even if the reactions section was purged (which I wouldn't personally suggest), there are at least a few lengthy, fully-sourced paragraphs. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 20:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, and most definitely newsworthy. Lets call it what it is and go with blurb 1 ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest getting rid of the flags and simply working a few reaction-comments considered trenchant or significant into a prose section. The flags themselves look like padding – or, uh, flag-waving. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why was Rojava removed from the blurb? Adds context to the specific area and target of the operation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 22:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Nice4What that it should be more specific than just "into Syria." At the very least, it should be something like " northern Syria ", but the best option (in my opinion) is to mention Rojava by name. Rojava is Turkey's target, not the Syrian state or government itself. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been done. Please report further updates at WP:ERRORS so discussion can occur in one place. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

- could you post this to ongoing? This fell off the front page but the offensive is still continuing.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Chemistry

 * Oppose - I see what you did there regarding Mr. Goodenough ;)   But seriously, half of Stan's article is quoted excerpts lifted directly from a book! Goodenough's article is indeed good enough, but Akira's is just OK. I agree that these Nobel prizes really should be featured but their recipients unfortunately are just not in a state that's acceptable. What if, at the end of the week after all the prizes are awarded, we do a single blurb? Something like:  "The 2019 Nobel Prizes are awarded for contributions to chemistry, literature, peace, physics, and physiology/medicine."  However, it might be "cheating" since we'd use lists... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was typing this nomination up earlier, but realised that 2 of the 3 articles wouldn't pass on sourcing and quality, so decided against it. Possibly could get it through having Lithium-ion battery as the main article, but might be a very dodgy move... PotentPotables (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dodgy is apparently not a problem when it comes to posting the Nobels. 159.53.46.143 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose All three articles need to be "goodenough". Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * After burning through fixing the last 6 Laureates, this one is going to be challenging at least for Whittingham due to the present state. The other two are "close" but still need good deal of work. I will see what I can do tomorrow. --M asem  (t) 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - posting the ready one. But opposing the not ready ones. And that is a do-able solution.BabbaQ (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yoshino is now completely cited. Please review again. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Whittingham & Yoshino are acceptable. Goodenough is  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was in the midst of trying to fix one last section on Goodenough (the magnetism stuff). --M asem (t) 17:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And now Ready --M asem (t) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posting. Masem, amazing work. On all three awards. --Tone 17:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Ecuadorian protests

 * Oppose stub --LaserLegs (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb first per Coffeeandcrumbs. Article is much improved. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt-blurb concise. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blurb first – No longer a stub. There is no good reason not to put a blurb up first. Nominator's comment includes several blurb-able events including a state of emergency, take over of govenment buildings and temporary relocation of the capital.--- Coffee  and crumbs  19:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb, per Coffeeandcrumbs ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nomination changed to blurb. please propose a blurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Added blurb Kingsif (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Did some copyediting in the altblurb - how does this look? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. The effective date is October 8 when the government announced the capital being relocated. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alt looks good. Kingsif (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support seems pretty obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Francis S. Currey

 * Weak oppose as noted, not dreadful, but a handful of unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the referencing is now up to scratch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing is good now - claims supported. PotentPotables (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Serafim Fernandes de Araújo

 * Support What's there is sourced and there may not be a lot more to add. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Physics

 * Comment Not unlike good ol' days when you had only one recipient to improve.... Brandmeistertalk  11:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Articles are not up to standards, especially Mayor's, which is riddled with s. Perhaps we could try and predict who will win the Nobel prize tomorrow and try to get a head start on updating their article... ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment indeed, the proposed targets are junk. The article on the prize itself is a GA  and the list of winners is an FL.  But apparently that's "cheating".  Perhaps we  won't  be featuring the most important awards of the year at all this  year.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Change the target to the prize article I understand that that's the "easy way out", but none of the prize-winners' articles are Main Page-worthy, and it'd be a disservice not to include this when it's specifically a routine item; I'm sure IAR will allow it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is not good. I am going to use the fact that we got an article on Shuping Wang from nothing to RD posting in around 24hr. It should not be hard for existing articles on these three researchers, particularly with the Nobel coverage, to get tidied up to post. They are close BLP violations as they stand, and this is burying the problem by moving the target to the list. I know the Nobels are important, and those that feel that they are should be working to improve the article. --M asem (t) 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, what is "not good" is not posting the Nobel Prize winners. See below, your claim has fallen on deaf ears, those articles have just been destroyed and still not good enough, 36 hours later.  My point, then, as now, remains.  Do  we want to just not post these events at all because of some absurd non-rule?  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that not posting is preferable to linking (not bold) to three/six seriously BLP-compromised articles. Hopefully, that will light a fire under the right user with the skills and ability to fix the articles. If not there is always next year. --- Coffee  and crumbs  00:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well at this rate it'll all be too stale to post. What a terrible oversight by this encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment what about featuring 51 Pegasi b, discovered by two of the laureates? --Mjoppien (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm constantly impressed by the creativity of people trying to bypass the quality criterion. Next we'll feature Enrico Fermi because 1) it's a featured article (!!!) 2) he won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938, so it's related to this event 3) it's preferable to say something other than nothing for the most important awards of the year. Sorry, but no. I oppose featuring any article aside from the three winners. If the articles aren't "good enough", either lower standards or improve them. If neither of those can be done, then just don't post. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Impromptu RFC Articles for the researchers are a must for Nobels, et al. These are prizes awarded to people. Contrary to popular belief, the Nobel Prize is not actually awarded for specific work, but rather for an overall body of work that may not neatly fit in a Wikipedia article; so, linking to articles about the work is not suitable either. Biographies for these people should be easy, because they all have a long and accomplished history already before winning the Nobel.130.233.2.235 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moot Your RFC should be inverted, as ITN/R already says we post the winner, not the list.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that not publishing the blurb with a different target is tantamount to dooming the articles to remain less than mediocre. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support the alt blurb. The extra prominence given to these articles may lead to further improvement. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. TRM's arguments make the most sense to me in all three of these debates (it'll be 4 by tomorrow). Kenmelken (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I respect TRM's point, but oppose the workaround in all cases. His voice is usually the loudest against the "damn the quality, we must post!" crowd.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying "damn" the quality, I'm saying target either the Good Article about the prize, or the Featured List about the prize winners. Their quality is more than sufficient for this purpose.  So hopefully I've clarified your misunderstanding of my position here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Consensus here is sufficient now.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article.". Is this no longer the case? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And bold or not, we can't post orange tagged BLP articles to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you see the word "normally"? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What makes this case an exception? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Articles are currently bad. Do not link to either the list of winners or the prize itself. Rockphed (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Let’s not waste time arguing here. Please just g fix the four articles. Once they are okay, they can be posted. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Peebles has a tag in the last sentence that needs to be fixed.  Jehochman Talk 19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The personal articles need to be good enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Peebles has been fixed up. Tackling the other two now. --M asem (t) 21:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mayor done. One more. --M asem (t) 22:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Queloz done. Ready. --M asem (t) 23:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) New Saturn moons

 * Support – Scott S. Sheppard strikes again. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support article is up to quality standards (featured), article has been updated (see Moons of Saturn), discovery is notable and in the news. Prefer alt1 over main blurb, since it gives a bit more context; Saturn is now the planet with the most moons, overtaking Jupiter. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . I am a little uneasy with the construction "making it the planet with most moons". It always was the planet with the most moons in the solar system; the discovery didn't make it so. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the word "known" which I think is better &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just adding Support in that this was confirmed by the IAU - next best thing to a peer-reviewed paper for something like this. (I feared it was just a press release in searching for the academic basis) --M asem  (t) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose the moons are so small they stretch the line between what's a moon and what isn't one. At some point we just have to draw the line, or one could've said Saturn has the most moons in the Solar System since the time Christiaan Huygens discovered the rings of Saturn. Banedon (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - quality standard met. BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting blurb comment Shouldn't they be called natural satellites instead of "moons"? Or is this some anti-scientific populist convention?--Adûnâi (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD Warren William Eginton

 * Support RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At 225 words of text, it is a bit thin for Main Page promotion, but.... – Sca (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it a bit. Care to take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support short, but enough - has enough context to qualify as not being a stub. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Changed from weak support to support --DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support - long enough to not be a stub. BabbaQ (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've marked this as ready, given that there are only 3 recent deaths currently on the main page, and that it has improved since the one oppose !vote. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Adequate.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize for Medicine

 * Oppose not one of the three target articles is suitable for main page inclusion, let alone all of them. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I do want to stress, we should not "fall back" to making the prize list the target as we have done in the past when the winners are not at quality. That's lazy. It should not be hard with this news to get those three up a bit in the next 12-24hrs. --M asem  (t) 13:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's a matter of taste, I suppose it depends if you want to either not post it at all, or post it with a different target. Worst case would be someone just deleting all the unreferenced material to leave a couple of crap stubs.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While it is a matter of taste, the primary purpose is to redirect readers to quality content (and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). If we don't have that, failing to post is nothing to cry about. We routinely post borderline notability cases to the RDs while omitting household names because of quality.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And with these, none of them are so far off the mark as to not likely be fixed in a short amount of time given the added coverage that should come as papers assemble some additional biographical stuff. (The hardest will likely be the awards list on each to source each one). But that has to be done, there's no excuse for not doing it on Nobel prize winners, or cheating that by using the list as the target. We expect it for other academic ITNRs, no reason to weaken that here. --M asem  (t) 14:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's somewhat disingenuous and misleading to insinuate that the associated featured list is not of quality content. Nor is it "cheating".  ITNR just makes a recommendation.  And as I said, if those three articles aren't rescued then is it better to not feature the prize at all or to feature it using the FL?  I wonder. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the Nobels are easily much more significant than the Grammys or Emmys, but quality is still a top priority for ITN over significance. And while there's nothing wrong with the list necessarily, it does not given the actual winners respect to simply call their articles a wash and not worth posting. (I would understand using the if these were non-existent articles to start and making a new article would be difficult, but we proved last year (or the year before?) that it was possible to make a quality article of a Nobel winner in <48hr.) --M asem (t) 14:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually say that. I said would we rather post the prize at all, focused on the featured list, or just let it pass away just because the scientist articles are garbage?  I look forward to someone with the knowledge fixing up the three articles without removing all the information!  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly 24 hours have passed now, and no sign of any tangible improvements. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As suspected, the information missing references has now just been removed.... Way to go everyone.  We could have been featuring this and getting 16 to 20  million people looking at and potentially improving those articles, but instead we just have a couple  of people, mainly just removing things.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem: you seem to be saying that if we didn't have articles on the three scientists, you would be fine with running the blurb "The Nobel Prize for Medicine is given to William Kaelin Jr., Peter J. Ratcliffe, and Gregg L. Semenza for cell research)". I don't understand why you would consider a non-existent article preferable to a lower quality article? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Putting aside my opinion on whether or not this event should be even considered for ITN (as well as my thoughts on the principle of ITN/R), the articles for the three winners are indeed lacking in both sourcing and content - specifically content related to their work that won them the Nobel Prize. Ratcliffe would be the best article of the three, but still I think it would be questionable for even a RD nom ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable enough to ITN. Very interesting news. Articles well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as the articles are not good, we cannot post. I have now removed the awards without sources and renamed the sections as "Selected awards", which is a quick fix. But all three bios still need some more references to be ok. --Tone 10:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Except for one section on Ratcliffe's, these are nearly there. --M asem (t) 21:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What's there is mostly covered/implied in the refs, but the language strays into WP:SYNTH territory. Someone who understands the subject may be able to rework the wording a bit.   GreatCaesarsGhost   11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. By not publishing the news we have doomed the articles that could have been viewed and improved by millions of users. This shouldn't be about notoriety. A singer's article is usually well referenced when compared to scientists who are barely known outside their field prior to winning the Nobel Prize. This has become a popularity contest that scientists are bent to lose. A former Nobel Laureate in Literature, Toni Morrison's death was a blurb while three Nobel Laureates in Science get overlooked. This is depressing Manish2542 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, blurbing Morrison's death was absurd and violated even the stated RD criteria for blurbs.130.233.2.235 (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We improve articles and then post them, not the other way around... RD criteria allows for the blurbing of "major transformative world leaders" as determined "on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC," which is precisely what happened with Morrison.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that the alt blurb provides a perfect vehicle to be the best of both worlds, getting the news that people are looking for (and expecting from an encyclopedia) onto the main page, and enabling a vast audience to help improve the articles.  But it seems that lawyering around the wording of ITNR is the theme of the moment.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But at the same time, for any other topic that is a blurb, we expect more than a simple update. Adding three rows to a table (even if it is featured) is not a significant update. We criticize sport events for lacking blurbs, awards shows for lacking prose, etc. Additionally, with the amount of coverage of the Nobels, it should not be that hard to at least get any of the Laureates articles to reasonably quality to post. They don't have to be perfect, but should identify minimally their career, their research (particularly that they got the Nobel for) and notable recognition. People fix these things, so we should not be expecting any less now. Otherwise, we're playing favorites with certain topics which we should not be. --M asem (t) 13:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Shall we make a case study? If we post the award article bolded and the laureates' articles get updated, this is good. Otherwise, we stick to posting only if the articles are in a good shape? A one-off case study. I was considering to feature Nobels as ongoing, but there is no 2019 all-inclusive article, just the template. --Tone 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how hard some people are working here to prevent these being posted in any shape. After all, who would expect the biggest encyclopedia in the world to feature the Nobel prizes on their main page?  We're stopping them through our own lawyering and bureaucracy.  Damaging.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I would love to have something posted, just trying to find the best way. I'd fix the articles myself but I simply have too many other things going on. --Tone 14:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, Tone, I get it. I know you're trying, I most definitely wasn't including in that group of people working hard to prevent it being posted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - RamblingMan/Tone, can you evaluate what more Semenza and Kaelin's articles need now? If you say what the BLP violations are I will know what to work on - thank you very much. Also, someone added a birthdate for Semenza and did not reply to my request for a source for it. Should the birthdate be removed? I have not found a source mentioning his birthdate. Thank you for your help. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, moot now thanks to Masem's great work, and Masem thank you also for answering the birthdate question (birthdate has been removed pending a source).70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I have done the last bit of work to get Ratcliffe's up to speed. There's more I will add to the other two (same sources support information on research), but these are ready to post. --M asem (t) 15:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And done with the other two (basically a short section on their research that led to the Nobel (as well as the prior Lasker Award). --M asem (t) 16:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * can you clarify your position because you are opposing above, but it seems that your view has changed now? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to post these because it looks like the oppose concerns were addressed. The articles appear to be updated and have no warning templates or serious defects.  Jehochman Talk 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think they are in a good shape now. Ha, some teamwork can get us far. Now, physics and chemistry ;) --Tone 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yevgeny Bushmin

 * Support I don't see any issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Everything looks sourced. Marked ready. --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rip Taylor

 * Oppose – I have tagged the citations needed. An -ography section is not necessary. --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose way too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 World Athletics Championships

 * Comment Maybe make it explicit that the US won the most golds, as opposed to the blurb being all about 'Murica. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The blurb reads like a headline I'd expect to see on an American newspaper. Athletics is about a lot of individual performances. It's not even really a team sport. Let's just drop the bit about which country won the most medals. Were there some great individual performances? They are more important. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There was one new individual world record set at the championships (by Dalilah Muhammad in women's 400 metres hurdles, as the nominator mentions). Another interesting thing is that a mixed event (2019 World Athletics Championships – Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay) was being contested there for the first time in the IAAF world championships history. Also, there was a major controversy related to the championships: several high-profile athletes (Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui) were unable to participate because of the IAAF testoserone rule. One could try to base a blurb on one of these aspects. Nsk92 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Altblurb added. It's ITNR; the blurb doesn't have to justify significance. It came, it went, that's enough. Rather curious that editors are loathe to mention medal counts, when that is the typical way that these sorts of events are reported. After all, that's exactly how the IAAF itself reported the events at the closing.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Medal counts almost always favour the highest population/richest nations. They really tell us little about the event. Some smaller nations with one or two brilliant athletes will never top the medal count. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Possibly support the Altblurb, but definitely not the first blurb suggested. The event was in the news for the lack of spectators and questionable decision-making in having it in Doha in the first place. No doubt the IAAF would focus on the medal counts - it was athletes and media focusing on the other aspects. The article covers all the controversies well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - And ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks substantially updated and well referenced. Neutral on which blurb we use ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. The article seems to be in reasonable enough shape. Nsk92 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb only. The United States fielded 159 athletes compared to the next highest country, Kenya, at 54, out of a field of 1,972 final entries. The U.S. won 29 medals, which would comprise about 1/6th of its athletes, while Kenya won 11. Regardless of whether the medals were gold, silver, or bronze, it would have been a far more notable outcome if any country other than the United States won more medals given their massive presence at the IAAF.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Comment ...event concludes. Sooo - what's the news peg?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.215.211 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As ITNR, none is needed, but neither is one prevented from being appended. Medal counts are obviously going nowhere. I think it would be a disservice to the participating athletes to highlight only the controversial parts. Notable records are a possibility but we would need to have target articles suitable for the main page.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Discovery of En Esur

 * Support - Article well referenced. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support A good looking article on a topic that has made the news even here in far flung Australia. A good opportunity to show that Wikipedia is about more than just politics and sport. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per both of the above. However, "largest known" and "Bronze Age" and "Southern (not even the whole) Levant" is a little pigeonholed. Perhaps the blurb should mention something about this being discovered underneath a planned road construction, to highlight the tenuous nature of undiscovered archeological finds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - Really cool! (and a good article) ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - Saved it from being slated --  Booth  Sift  02:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Portuguese legislative election

 * Does it matter that it is an EU country? Do Luxembourg or Malta have a greater influence than USA, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, India, Iran, Australia or Switzerland? I don't think there is a need to say "EU country" as a reason -- Booth  Sift  02:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Presumably the Preliminary Results section will become just Results once overseas voting concludes, and what is there already is pretty good. Lots of tables, but enough prose. A summary of topics of interest during the campaigning would be nice, but not necessary.130.233.2.235 (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose some unreferenced claims and no "final" results? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ginger Baker

 * Support. Obituaries already now starting to appear. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced, not seeing any glaring issues. Noting that the discography seems to be covered by two main sources so no need to individually source each. --M asem (t) 14:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. My only quibble is the final section. Is it too esoteric? And what date/year was "most recent drums". Apart from that, good to go.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I have tagged the citations needed.--- Coffee  and crumbs  18:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support shortly (working through Coffee's helpful tags). Note have remove the section on kit, which seems to have been drawn from photographs. Ceoil  (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to go now, I hope, re references. Ceoil  (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly now ready for posting. Jusdafax (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . Thanks all &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Diahann Carroll

 * Oppose insufficiently referenced. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose discography mainly unreferenced still. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good work on the article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ...but there would be some CNs in the article to be ironed out. STSC (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not even close to being fully referenced. Ping me if completed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I have just been adding more citations to the existing references. The article is well written, covers her life well, and has sufficient references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I have tagged the citations needed. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment All the citations needed tags have been addressed. All shows and all awards are now sourced. Perhaps those who voted Oppose would like to check if it needs any more sourcing? The Rambling Man, BabbaQ,  Coffee  and crumbs ? I am sure more sources could be found if necessary. Then perhaps this could be posted while it is still a recent death. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems sufficient now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, OK, if all albums listed need a source, I will find and add them. Just nobody mention WP:REFBOMB. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment All albums are now sourced. The Rambling Man, is there anything else that you feel needs a source before this article can go in Recent Deaths? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It’s quite sufficient. Suggest posting. Jusdafax (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , good team effort here &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Iraqi economic protests

 * Oppose The section of this article that pertains to the protests that took place in 2019 is only a single paragraph long. If it is expanded then maybe, but in the current state I'd say not yet ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically the protests have been ongoing since 2018, I just updated it with the 2019 protests. I've edited the blurb to reflect that. STSC (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also expanded the content. STSC (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you assert that the the protests have been ongoing since 2018 but there is nothing from January 2019 to September 2019.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing written in the article for that period; I updated it with the latest protests happened in October. STSC (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article infobox claims that protests have been going on for a year. I will remove that then.  starship .paint  (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The infobox only indicates the current status that is 'ongoing'. Besides, nothing written doesn't mean nothing happened actually. I've read the news about the Iraq protests in June this year. STSC (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now added the June protest to the content. STSC (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, on notability. The death toll for this week's protests is already at 46, and the protests are having significant political repercussions. The article could use some extra work but the section dealing with the current protests seems sufficiently updated. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - seems ok for posting. Also on notability.BabbaQ (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - article is good enough for posting, though it still can be improved. Significant death toll.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose prosline, needs copyedit for grammar, some CNs. Infobox says 47 killed -- in this "new wave" or since 2018 (where the proseline lists several deaths)? Nolo on "significance". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed them; the prosline in 2018 section is not ideal but I would try to edit to minimise it. STSC (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now, nice work. It still reads like a list of stuff that happened without a lot of context - "sacked the airport" I mean damn that could be a paragraph in itself. This will probably end up posted, please keep expanding. Cheers. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, but article is written chronologically, starting with July 2018. Note that today's BBC story says "at least" 70 killed in "the past five days." But readers of our target article must wade through more than 500 words to get to the news that makes this topic potential ITN material. Needs rewrite. – Sca (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT? Chronological order seems a logical choice, but feel free to improve further &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In expository writing, one usually introduces or summarizes the most salient points in the beginning, then proceeds to a more detailed narrative. Since I lack expertise on Iraq and the Middle East generally, I left it to others to revise the article to correspond more closely to the blurb, which properly begins, "At least seventy people are killed...." (Suggest change seventy to 70.) – Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At least 70 people ... since when? Lets be accurate and include "since May 2018" in the blurb please" --LaserLegs (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BBC: "The death toll in anti-government protests that have swept Iraq the past five days has soared to at least 70, security and medical sources say." – Sca (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now almost 100 deaths which are solely related to the October protests. - STSC (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , please update the article first and then report updates at WP:ERRORS. --- Coffee  and crumbs  22:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Wen Chuanyuan

 * Support Everything looks good. I can't verify the all-Chinese sources though. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miguel León-Portilla

 * Comment I'll see what I can do with this, for references, especially the Early life section. It should be doable.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Every paragraph seems to have a source. "Early life" section could use another, but other than that it looks pretty good ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Kirby

 * Support Well sourced and article seems detailed enough ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Kim Shattuck

 * Support pending improvements. Maybe the kids in America could help out?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Kids in America are probably more interested in a different Kim; this is the Kim who replaced the Pixies' bassist Kim. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Stub. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) B-17 crash
Crash of one of the few remaining airworthy B-17 Flying Fortress of World War II, involving multiple fatalities. This is notable. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I know this occurred the news pages, but it is smaller aircraft, not commercial, and we generally do not post non-commercial crashes. --M asem (t) 00:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * An aircraft with a wingspan of nearly 110 ft and length of nearly 75 ft is not, by any definition of the word, "small". Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wingspan: 103 ft, 9 in. (31.5 m.). – Sca (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe not "small small" like a private prop plane, but I meant more that this was a private, non-commercial passenger plane, and we have typically shied from posting private and military plane crashes unless there are more factors at plane. The fact this was an historical plane involved (And thus part of the coverage) is why I'm only weakly opposing. If it was a modern private plane with the same causalities we likely wouldn't be posting it. --M asem (t) 14:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Extremely sad, but I'm not seeing the long term significance of the event. Also the casualty level is below what we typically look for in disasters. Frankly I think the claim to WP:N is kinda weak. My guess is this will drop from the news cycle within a day or two. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I make no claim to long-term significance; it was submitted in consideration of the "entries of timely interest" guidance. Not clear that both earthquakes currently featured from last week are still in the news cycle either. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the best thing to do here is to keep expanding the article and submit it to DYK.  Jehochman Talk 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand that the whole "send it to DYK" schtick is a bit overdone at this point, but this article, while not ITN-worthy, is actually DYK eligible when I checked it with the tool. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Other than the fatalities, this is a tragic historical loss of an airworthy B-17 (big chunk of the fuselage is totally destroyed, while it remains to be seen if the other surviving sections can be salvaged). Nonstopmaximum (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It's in the news, and there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS rule. Article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - good shape article. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem - no long term significance. Banedon (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Losing an airworthy version of a historical aircraft is certainly of long term significance(it is said only 10 or so are airworthy). 331dot (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per AO and Banedon. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support there's no need for something to have "long term significance" (sic), that's not a criterion of ITN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While I appreciate the historical significance as described above, I'm just not seeing the volume of news coverage that ITN entries typically have. Sam Walton (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's got news coverage across the globe, including at CNN, BBC, CBS, USA Today, Time, New Zealand Herald, The Guardian, The Independent, RT, Yahoo, MSN, Bangkok Post, Reuters, Hindustan Times, Stuff.co.nz..... I think that's sufficient!!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Rambling Man. This was the lead story on the NBC evening news. What’s driving it is the significance of the B-17 and there is a newsworthy angle about extreme heroism of several rescuers. This and the historic nature of the plane is giving the story much greater prominence than the typical airplane crash with 14 casualties. Jehochman Talk 11:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per others. I personally saw it in the news a lot ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Banedon. Significance lacking, as crashes of 75-year-old preserved/restored WWII airplanes have become fairly frequent. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have a list? That sounds like it would be useful so we should make one if we don't have it already.  Jehochman Talk 13:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed,, please cite that statement. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just drawing on general memory. FWIW, I have longstanding interests in aviation and in WWII, and take note of such crashes. Every once in a while you read about one. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been looking for a list. We have an awful lot of lists of aviation accidents, starting from Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents, but we don't seem to have a list of historical aircraft that have crashed.  Maybe we should make, Category:List of aviation accidents and incidents involving historical aircraft, and find out how common this type of crash is. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several crashes at airshow listed within List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2010–present) - about 30 or so, from what I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And List of air show accidents and incidents in the 21st century too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a military aircraft (privately owned and flown) and wasn't an air show. It was a vintage aircraft that was offering the public a 30-40 minute flight for $450 per ticket. It's a highly unusual set of circumstances for a crash. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Too much splitting of hairs in that. If you take time to note, I already pointed out that not every one of them is automatically an example, just that there examples within those lists. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, earthquakes are more frequent than plane crashes, and ITN is currently featuring two of those, from 26 September and 24 September, which isn't exactly timely either. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting coincidence that the two deadliest earthquakes of 2019 happened within days of each other. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in consideration of the totality of factors (death toll, the loss of a rare aircraft, and quality of the article). However, comments that the opposition is using "invalid rationale" are unseemly, as there is a conventionally respected understanding that the crash of a military aircraft is less noteworthy absent long term impacts. I disagree that this should be considered a military aircraft, but the argument is valid.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The invalid rationale arguement is not unseemly. It says nothing a WP:ITN about an article needing to have historical significance. The event is in the news, there is consensus to post and the article is in good shape. It should be posted. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it wasn't a military aircraft, as it was privately owned and not operated by the government. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussions here involve (mostly) a clash of opinions, not facts. For example, there is an argument to consider this a military craft (it is a B-17, after all), or not (based on its absence of commission). I feel it is not, but those who have a different opinion are not wrong, and I don't think it's civil to call other people's opinions invalid.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose We posted the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash, but that did have far more sustained coverage than this incident, which has mostly dropped out of the international news after the inital reports. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting story, decent article. Maybe "ongoing" if not a full blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Less that two days ago you were reminded of the purpose and requirements for ongoing. Would you mind then explaining how this story meets either of those? Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per 331dot. Also the article is well developed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. There is some debate as to the significance of this event for ITN, but overall there is more support, and many opposes were "weak" in nature, and citing criteria such as "long-term significance", which don't usually play a part in ITN discussions. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Image is good to go now too. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting new details have emerged. I'm posting sources to the talk page for others to use.     This crash accounts for 24% of vintage airplane crash fatalities over the last 37 years.  That's pretty significant.  Also interesting, the pilot was the most experienced B-17 pilot alive with 7,000+ hours of flight hours.  The co-pilot was a retired 747 pilot. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just goes to show we should summarily reject false anecdotal claims! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "False" – WP:AGF. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's all quite fine. What we see is that having the statistics really helps.  These stats were not easy to find.  Senator Blumenthal was useful in providing this information.  Jehochman Talk 14:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No bad faith, just we should work (like the encyclopedia) on reliable and verifiable sources, not "fake news"! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that should be interesting in future events like this, a plane crash with no continuing international coverage being posted ... 86.159.194.89 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s no requirement for continuing coverage. If there is wide coverage that can be sufficient. The point of this page is to display a variety of quality work that was in the news. Jehochman Talk 01:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hargovind Laxmishanker Trivedi

 * Support, have done a copyedit, I think the article is fine. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support not the greatest or most in-depth article ever, but satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready six hours later... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Sissons

 * Support Good enough article, solid referencing ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support InedibleHulk (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 *  Oppose . Referencing no where near complete enough. Large swathes of the article carry unsupported statements. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now adequately sourced with no Daily Fail presence. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One large swath is gone now. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SchroCat. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Only minor issues in quality, just go ahead with it. STSC (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we don't post onto the front page if there is unsupported information or tags. These are not "minor" problems for an article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - sources now added. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Three from the Daily Fail? - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall adding any of those. I must have been squinting really hard so they went a bit blurry. Feel free to replace. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I dropped 2 of the Daily F, and the third references an intention, - not critical, I believe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready 24 hours later. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karel Gott

 * Support: Article looks good, notable singer with 50-100 million sold records. --Clibenfoart (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, decently sourced. The image placement is a mess, though. Less might be more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC) - I boldly rearranged, dropping a few that show almost no face, or are similar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is in decent shape, big event in the Czech Rep. and also current No. 1 item in German Google News. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support great looking article with solid sourcing ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Peru constitutional crisis
A country going through a political crisis against corruption for years has its president dissolve congress. This is notable.--<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 08:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I was just about to nominate this. Banedon (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support notable enough political event, no issues with article – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine, good sources, and constitutional crises are always good ITN bait ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. Ready to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I do wonder if we should add something about the Peruvian congress voting to remove him from office since that (coupled with their refusal to dissolve) is what is actually causing a constitutional crisis. As far as I can tell, dissolving congress is normally within the powers of the Peruvian President and they are just objecting because they didn't want to pass a law he proposed.  Maybe:
 * President of Peru Martín Vizcarra dissolves the Congress of Peru while they vote to remove him from office, resulting in a constitutional crisis.
 * would work. I think it still needs massaging.  Rockphed (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * . Awaiting further comments on Rockphed's suggested wording. I am also wondering whether 2019 Peruvian constitutional crisis should really be merged into 2017–19 Peruvian political crisis. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support I would support Rockphed's wording, as it explains why the president dissolving congress is a constiitutional crisis. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

RD: Russell Bucklew

 * Support. The quality is up there, and there's a very good reason why the individual should not have a standalone article. feminist (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Nice article. No significant issues. Good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure the death of someone notable for murder is notable enough for the main page in the news. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He's also the appellant to a Supreme Court case. feminist (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if we extracted his biographical details from the article, it would amount to less then a stub that we would never post as a standalone. Stephen 05:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * His biographical details would include his criminal case history and the various court challenges. If BLPCRIME did not exist, it would be fully possible to have a reasonably length article that gets into a bit more about his pre-prison life and the legal battles he fought. But, at the same time, this isn't like a John Hinckley Jr. where the crime itself was the subject of much attention. So because we are respecting BLPCRIME here, it is reasonable to use the article about his last legal defense as his bio, since that covers his entire life. --M asem (t) 05:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. This can be argued the other way, but I don't see any significant issue in the article to bar posting now. Maybe we should amend ITNRD to prohibit posting "criminals" or people with repulsive history? because it currently does not prevent so. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The RD criteria has already been expanded to include non-humans. Expanding it to include court cases by way of the deaths of the people involved it too far. There was a similar nomination a few weeks back concerning the one of the Jonesboro murderers, in which the page for the court case was apparently re-named for the person and then nominated for RD. It was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea. The nominator's beef is with BLPCRIME, not RD.130.233.2.252 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the basis of your oppose is factually incorrect. No one is expanding it to include court cases. Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage in another article are already eligible for RD, though it's determined on a case-by-case basis. And that's what we're doing here. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is completely legit to consider this on a case-by-case basis for inclusion but the nominated article lacks real biographical information. The background section is full of information about state-level legislation and the poorly covered biographical information is put in function of invoking the Baze v. Rees decision for such cases in general. The article needs to undergo complete restructuring so that a biographical section with real biographical information, such like early life, education, career and other important life events, in function of the person's life is added (irrespective of whether the current background section will be cleansed or not). And yes, there might be cases where people without stand-alone articles qualify for RD but this is definitely not one of them considering the coverage of person's life in the nominated article. The article in its current shape seems to be ready for posting a blurb on the court case as the main news but it is very unlikely to receive sufficient support for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's the case that's notable, not the individual involved. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Stephen, TRM. Being momentarily famous for being dead isn't ITN-worthy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, that's not the case. He was a criminal who's legal battle to avoid the death penalty was notable. There's not that much coverage (but enough) of noting his lethal injection yesterday, its the battles before he was known for, of which this SCOTUS case was his last chance. --M asem (t) 13:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then it seems to me he was notable for the trial & the death sentence, which was carried out. – Sca (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Ammarpad - a standalone article is not necessary for RD if there is sufficient coverage in another article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:ITN, RD postings can be of "an individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article." The target article is for a case not the individual in question. Thereby this does not qualify for RD. Those evaluating the nomination should comment if the target article and story (the case) is notable for a blurb. Otherwise to qualify for RD the person in question needs a standalone Wikipedia article.  Spencer T• C 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what that says: it says that an individual with a standalone articles is presumed notable for an RD and discussion should only focus on quality. This does not say that an individual that is discussed in RSes in the context of another article is ineligible for RD, but the automatic nature is not there. I fully expected the discussion here to consider if a person notable but limited by BLPCRIME should still be noted for RD. --M asem (t) 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.  Spencer T• C 02:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also note we made an exception for Ian Brady who due to BLPCRIME did not get an article of his own. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eric Pleskow

 * Support. I don't see any issues. feminist (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Hong Kong protests

 * Support per nom. I was just about to nominate it myself. This shouldn't have been removed from ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN is not meant for sensationalised breaking news. STSC (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A hardly unexpected vote, given this extremely recent finding that fell short of WP:NPOV in China/Hong Kong-related edits, as well as their support for the China airport blurb.  starship  .paint  (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm entitled to my opinion to vote just like anyone else and I've given my reason for that. I remind you just take part in the debate without any personal attack on others per WP:CIVILITY - STSC (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * China airport blurb Tells one all they need to know about this editor. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Jumping to conclusions, dear patriot?  starship .paint  (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a U.S. citizen, that hardly makes myself a "patriot", so do better. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, American and patriot aren't mutually exclusive.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a load of gibberish. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Corrosive fluid" and "Sprite" aren't mutually exclusive, either. One just sounds worse. Lemon juice, white vinegar and seawater can also bring a tear to a grizzled cop's eye, as well as season a trout. Everything is a weapon if it falls into the wrong hands. Go sulfuric or go home, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A hardly unexpected behaviour from Starship.paint, given this blocking him indefinitely for harassment. STSC (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Davey2116. Banedon (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment and wait This was removed from Ongoing because it went nearly a week without significant updates. If editor interest is more sustained, it would be suitable to add it again. But, I would like to see it for a few days before supporting. "Protestors/police harmed during protest" is not terribly notable.130.233.2.252 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Made the headlines internationally today, and the article has been updated. feminist (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait to see what, if anything else, happens. Per the IP, protestors hurt during a protest is hardly news. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait - I supported taking down the article the first time as I though that there were no meaningful updates being made to it. But now, it seems like the protests are back in the news and the article is being regularly updated again. If this is not a one day thing (I know the protests are heating up because of China's National Day today) and the protests continue, then we should re-add. If the protests (and updating of the article) cool down after today, perhaps we could blurb it  ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the major protests are mostly conducted on weekends. Today was an exception. As such, we would expect most updates to come during or right after the weekends.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Today (1 October) is public holiday in Hong Kong if you still don't know. STSC (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing – as they're still going on – and seem likely to continue (sporadically?) for quite some time. A glaring embarrassment for China. (Reminds me a little of the pre-Wallfall demos in E. Germany – during which the regime realized it couldn't start shooting its own people inside the country.) – Sca (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait but generally Support - Today is special because of the HK holiday, and there are a lot more protesters out there which are raising the level of violence out of that. Let's see if that's sustained into tomorrow, but I also don't see a problem adding it back (I was weakly opposed to the remove only that events had slowed down but the protests were still ongoing). --M asem (t) 14:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support This is ongoing and major world news. I am surprised to find that it has even been removed... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Offensichtlich, some people just don't like Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per TRM. And, having read The Guardian update above, hysterical news reports seem to be unclear whether the protestor rioter was armed/charging at police, whether a sole officer overstepped protocol, or whether this actually reflects a broader policy shift on the part of HKPF. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 15:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The rioter kept charging at the officer with a metal tube; the officer just shot him in self defence. STSC (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing but I'd support a blurb. Seriously what is the rush to put things in ongoing? Blurb it, if it's still ongoing when the blurb is about to expire off, put it in the OG box. Seriously.... --LaserLegs (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One person shot "by a live round" but not killed is not a blurb. (PS: "Shot by a live round" (BBC) doesn't make sense. 'Rounds' don't shoot, guns do.) – Sca (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The (at least) weekly protests/demonstrations/riot/fight for freedom/terrorist attacks (pick your favourite) have been ongoing since June. How much "still ongoing" do you want it to be? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hold up Police seem to have a hunch some Molotovs are scheduled to fly today. Zero shot to one shot is not a dramatic eruption nor chaotic escalation. A bunch of people or government buildings literally catching fire would be both. Wait till midnight. If nothing beats a rowdy shot teen by then, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the history of Hong Kong, a protestor getting shot by the police is a signficant escalation. -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Viewing him as a protestor, it stands out. But as a guy attacking armed cops, it can't be that weird locally, can it? It's not like shooting protestors for the sake of quashing protest, which should always be remarkable and shameful. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This was posted to ongoing until only four days ago. My question to those voting, if that hadn't happen and this was a proposal to remove, would your vote still be the same (support<->opp rmv, oppose<->supp rmv)? If not, why not? -- KTC (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note Just to clarify things: ITN is not meant to be a newsticker. The only reason ITN exists is to highlight quality Wikipedia writing about current events.  At the time the Hong Kong Protests article was removed from ongoing, it was no longer current.  It did not, still does not, and never will have anything to do with whether or not other sources, such as news organizations, are reporting on this.  It only has to do with whether or not the Wikipedia article is being continuously updated with that information.  If you all had wanted to keep this in ongoing, you all would have been updating it along the way.  At this point, I'm fine with returning it there, but is everyone going to just abandon it again and let it go out-of-date?  Because if so, what's the point?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed there will be lack of interest in the article in a few days time, believe me. That's why it was taken off 'ongoing' in the first place. STSC (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If and when the article no longer meets the criteria to be listed as ongoing, it can and will be removed. That's not a reason to decide not to list it as such when it does meet the criteria, and it's quite fallacious to think it is. The "why bother" mentality with that comment is just as lethargic as the editors you suspect will fail to keep the article updated for very long. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per Davey and per Sca. The article is updated, the topic is in the news, the situation has re-intensified, and ongoing is more appropriate than a blurb. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 18:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm looking at the In_the_news instructions and I'm not seeing where it says "Stories which would not qualify for a blurb can be stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" -- lets keep that in mind when evaluating consensus on this item. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rainbow trout transparent.png – Sca (talk)


 * LaserLegs, The purpose of ongoing (according to In_the_news) is "to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news" and the criteria is that it the article is being continuously updated with new information. More relevant here is that "Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." When assessing whether or not this proposal meets the criteria, rather than keeping in mind what WP:ITN does not say, let's keep in mind what it does say. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So it does say that. I would appreciate being corrected without the snark, but I thank you nonetheless. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no intention of being snarky here, but perhaps it came off that way because the original post of our back-and-forth here (the suggestion that we believe that stories which don't qualify ought to be "stuffed into ongoing to an indeterminate amount of time" and that this is somehow a rebuttal to the rationale of the support !votes) struck me as being a less-than-respectable comment. If I'm not mistaken (and I sincerely apologize in advance if I'm having a false memory), you've in the past suggested that it should be a requirement that editors know how long any story will stay in ongoing before putting it there, and you seem to be reiterating that belief here. Nobody has a crystal ball. We don't know when the article will or will not go out of shape, we don't know when the story will or will not cease to be in the news. Of course the amount of time that this story will remain on ITN is indeterminate, and there's no problem with that. We'll cross the bridge of removal when we get to it. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 22:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - This is definitely for Ongoing now. Situation has intesified etc.BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I !voted to remove and I stand by that but we should not hesitate to add it back. It appears this is not over and is certainly in the news. The first injury from a live round may not warrant a blurb but certainly establishes the situation is ongoing. Sometimes we do not wait long enough before removing an item. That is a fact of life. News is unpredictable. --- Coffee  and crumbs  23:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Supports outweigh opposes 3:2. Timely. – Sca (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add this because we have a rough consensus. Should the balance of opinion shift substantially against this, it can be removed.  Jehochman Talk 01:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , please remove the "2019". --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Jehochman Talk 02:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry but can you revert your most recent edit. had already fixed the issue. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  02:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Someone has been shot for the first time. Definitely noteworthy.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)